[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Kissan Cotton Mills vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:53338-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23909/2025
M/s Kissan Cotton Mills, Through Its Proprietor Shri Mahendra
Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Purabsar,
Dist. Hanumangarh, Having Its Principal Place Of Business At 10
Am, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, 335524
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
2. Union Of India, Through Secretary Finance, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. Goods And Services Tax Council, Through Its Secretary,
5Th Floor, Tower Ii, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Chief Commissioner (Sgst), Commercial Tax Dept,
Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005
5. The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle A,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, 335513
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
09/12/2025
1. Issue notice.
2. Learned AAG Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, accepts notice on behalf
of respondents Nos.1, 4 & 5; Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned ASG
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2; and learned counsel
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 05:02:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53338-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23909/2025]
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent No.3. Therefore, the service is complete.
3. The only aspect raised by the writ petitioner is that it should
be given opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Court in relation
to the appeal preferred by it relating to the order passed in
respect of the year 2019-2020.
4. Is is stated that that the delay occurred in filing the appeal
was on account of bonafide reasons.
5. The person who was handling the affairs of the business i.e.
the proprietor was in judicial custody since 2018. Behind his back,
the brother of the proprietor was only safeguarding the assets and
had no knowledge of the GST law and portal. The delay is being
sought to be condoned.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the time laid down under Section 107 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 does not allow the appellate
authority to condone the delay more than the time which has been
fixed under the provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of
Tecnimont Private Limited (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB
Private Limitated) Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.(2021) 12 SCC 477
held the provisions of Section 107 to be sacrosanct so far as the
Tribunal is concerned and we could not have the power to condone
the delay beyond the period prescribed therein. However, the
power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
would not be curtailed so as to condone the delay in appropriate
cases considering the facts and circumstances therein.
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 05:02:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53338-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23909/2025]
7. This Court in a judgment passed in the case of Eagle Trans
Shipping And Logistics India Private Limited Vs. Union of India &
Ors.(D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 15466/2025) held as under:
"12. It is settled law that no person can be left remediless if
the appeal is barred by limitation. This Court would have to
examine the case on merits. However, the power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough and
cannot be fettered by the provisions of law. If in a particular
case, we find that in the interest of justice, the delay should
be condoned, also considering the facts that the knowledge
of the order cannot be said to have been gained especially
when the e-mail itself dost not reflect the detailed order and
the portal does not contain the detailed order, it cannot be
assumed that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the
order passed by the respondents."
8. Considering the facts as noticed above, we deem it
appropriate to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and direct
that if any appeal is preferred within a period of one month from
today, the same shall be taken into consideration and decided on
merits.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
4-nirmala/-
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 05:02:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
