M/S Ram Niwas Jagwayan Oil Mills vs. Union Of INDIA

The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority-One, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023 was rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan- I, Circle-C, Jaipur, whereby GST demand

1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice, the Order-in-Original was passed on 31.05.2023 without duly considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. He submits that the said order was not effectively served upon the petitioner and was merely uploaded on the GST portal. It is submitted that the petitioner, being a company with no turnover, was wholly unaware of the said Order-in-Original, as the respondents failed to communicate the aforesaid proceedings to it through any other statutory mode of service.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only upon receipt of the recovery notice issued by the respondents, approximately four months after the Order-in-Original was passed, that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023. [2026:RJ-JP:36832-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-971/2024] Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 07.10.2023. However, by then, the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/ CGST Act had already expired. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by the first appellate authority vide order dated 27.10.2023. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors2, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.3, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors4 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors5 argues that sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control has been shown and thus appeal be directed to be considered on merits after condoning the delay by this Court.

Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contends that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation.

Having heard, as above, it transpires that while it is true that the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation provided under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner could not submit its appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond its control, non- 1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 3 D.B. CWP 14658/2024 4 D.B. CWP 7260/2025 5 D.B. CWP 11794/2025

In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.

Aside above, reference may also be had to a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.6 in CWP No. 27139/2025, wherein based on elaborate discussion and deliberations thereof, following view has been taken. “60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. (ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing. (iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today. (iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. (v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”

We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Accordingly, we see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioner herein.

Apropos, the fact that the impugned Order-in-Original was passed as far back as in the year May 2023, yet no steps were taken for 6 2026:PHHC099329:DB

In the premise, following the consistent view as already taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.

All pending applications stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 75/TUSHAR KUMAWAT