M/S. Sainik Mining And Minerals Coy vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/3195/2025HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02018300202519 May 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sainik Mining and Minerals Coy, is a registered dealer under the GST Act, 2017. Their registration was cancelled by an order dated 03.07.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal on 05.12.2024, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation. The petitioner claims they gained knowledge of the cancellation order in November 2024 while attempting to file a GST return, and that the order was not properly served. They also state that the date of communication was mistakenly recorded as 03.07.2024 in the appeal memo.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority failed to address the crucial issue regarding the date of communication of the order cancelling the petitioner's registration. The Court emphasized that the limitation period for filing an appeal is counted from the date of communication of the impugned order. Without making any comments on the merits of the case, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the issue afresh, providing a specific finding on the date from which the limitation period commences. The Court directed the parties to appear before the Appellate Authority on 19.06.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation, considering the date of communication of the order cancelling registration. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was not served upon them, and thus the limitation period should not have commenced from the date of the order. They also contended that the date of communication was erroneously mentioned as '03.07.2024' in the appeal memo due to a typographical error. The respondents argued that the memo of appeal itself admitted service of the cancellation order on 03.07.2024, and that the appellate authority lacks the power to condone delays exceeding thirty days.

Sections Cited

Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:20904-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3195/2025 M/s. Sainik Mining and Minerals Coy, 06, Ward No, Unnamed Road, Balloopura, Sikar, Rajsthan, 332718, Through Proprietor Sandeep S/o Jagdish, Age about 38 Years, Resident of 651/2 Madhu Vihar, Rewari, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, State of Rajasthan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. Appellate Authority, State Tax Jaipur Third, Jaipur. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Circle Neemkathana, Jaipur-IV, AC. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aditya Sharma Mr. Shantanu Gupta for Mr. Vedant Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order 19/05/2025

This petition is filed aggrieved of dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of limitation.

The brief facts are that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 03.07.2024. The appeal was filed on 05.12.2024. As per the case of petitioner, the knowledge of order cancelling the registration was gained in November, 2024 while trying to file GST return.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of cancellation order was not served upon the petitioner and hence, the limitation shall not run from the date of order. It is further

[2025:RJ-JP:20904-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3195/2025] argued that by typographical mistake in the memo of appeal the date of communication of order was written as ‘03.07.2024’.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted case as per the memo of appeal the copy of cancellation order was served on 03.07.2024. The contention is that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

From the perusal of the impugned order it is forthcoming that the issue with regard to date of communication of the order cancelling the registration has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. The limitation is counted from the date of communication of the order impugned.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the issue on merits afresh after giving a specific finding as to from which date the limitation starts.

The writ petition is allowed.

To avoid further delay, let the parties appear before the office of the respondent No.3 on 19.06.2025 at 11:00 AM. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J GARIMA /15

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.