M/S Chambal Graphics And Printers vs. Union Of INDIA - Rajasthan High Court, 10 September 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:36472-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15569/2026 CNR: RJHC020776312026 | URN: CW / 33202U / 2026 M/s Chambal Graphics And Printers, H1 6D Electronic Complex Ipia Raod No 1Kota 324005 (Rajasthan) Through Its Proprietor Sh. Nitin Khandelwal S/o Sh. Balmukund Khandelwal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Finance Department Government Of India New Delhi 2. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax Statue Circle C Scheme Jaipur 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Kar Bhawan Ambedkar Circle Jaipur 4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Commissioner Circle B State Tax Ac/ Cto Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya Mr. Mayank Vyas Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj for Mr. Samit Bishnoi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order(Oral) 10/09/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

For the reasons stated in the application (I.A. No. 1/2026), the prayer for placing the additional documents on record is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

[2026:RJ-JP:36472-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-15569/2026]

The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority, State Tax, Kota, whereby the appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2024 was rejected. The petitioner further seeks condonation of the delay in filing the appeal against the Order-in- Original dated 30.01.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-B, Kota, whereby GST demand of Rs. 11,83,563/-, for Financial Year 2018-19, was raised on the account of discrepancies in tax liabilities declared by the petitioner under GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

The appeal against the said order was filed on 14.10.2025, i.e., after a delay of 503 days. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.05.2026 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 07.08.2026. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the delay in filing

the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. They submit that, prior to passing of the Order-in-Original raising the tax demand, a Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.2023 ("SCN") was also issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner could not file a reply to the said SCN, as the same was not duly served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is approximately 50 years of age and is not tech-savvy. It is also submitted that the petitioner was suffering from serious health- related ailments and remained under medical treatment during the relevant period. Thus, he could not regularly access the GST portal.

1 Learned counsels for the petitioner further submit that the petitioner was wholly unaware of the said SCN and the demand subsequently raised against him vide the Order-in-Original dated

[2026:RJ-JP:36472-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-15569/2026] 30.01.2024. It is submitted that the said SCN and the Order-in-Original were merely uploaded on the GST portal, that too under the wrong tab, i.e., "Additional Notices and Orders", and not under the designated tab, i.e., "Notices and Orders". The said SCN and Order-in-Original were not otherwise effectively communicated to the petitioner through any statutory mode.

2 Learned counsels lastly submit that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the passing of the Order-in-Original for the first time on 18.07.2025, when the outstanding amount of the demand raised by the respondents was debited from the Electronic Credit Ledger. However, by then, the statutory period for preferring an appeal under Section 107 had elapsed. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period.

In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

Learned counsels 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 argue 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. 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

[2026:RJ-JP:36472-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-15569/2026]

Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contend 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- adjudication of appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.

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

10.

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 Depart ment 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 6 2026:PHHC099329:DB

[2026:RJ-JP:36472-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-15569/2026] 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 ap peal 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.”

11.

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.

12.

Apropos, the fact that the impugned order was passed as far back as in January, 2024, yet no steps were taken for recovery thereunder until July 2025, also lends credence to the stand taken by the petitioner, duly supported by his sworn affidavit, that the impugned order had perhaps been placed in the wrong tab, namely, “Additional Notices and Orders”, which was subsequently merged with the “Notices and Orders” tab, and that it was only thereafter that the Department woke up to effect recovery pursuant to the impugned order.

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

All pending applications stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 66/AARZOO ARORA