[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajputana Construction Company vs The Union Of India ... on 18 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:55219-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12964/2025
Rajputana Construction Company, Through Its Proprietor Mohan
Singh S/o Oop Singh, Aged 32 Years R/o 1 Ward No. 2,
Gondusar, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334802.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Gst Council, Through The Chairman, Secretariat, 5Th
Floor, Tower Ii, Jeevan Bharati Building, Janpath Road,
Connaught Palace, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Circle F, Bikaner Ward Ii,
Rajasthan.
4. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods And
Service Tax, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Rewaria.
Mr. Shashi Vaishnav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat.
Mr. Rajat Arora.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
18/12/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking restoration
of GST registration with effect from the date of cancellation i.e.
28.02.2022 and setting aside of the Order-in Original dated
10.01.2023 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.04.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed solely on the ground
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 02:22:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55219-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-12964/2025]
of delay, and none of the grounds raised in the appeal were
considered, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It has been
submitted that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and the
proprietor of the petitioner Mohan Singh. It has been submitted
that the petitioner is not adequately educated and lacks the
requisite technical competence to operate a computer or to
comprehend the complexities of the online filing system, including
the procedural requirements pertaining to GST compliance.
Therefore, he engaged the services of an accountant/ local
advocate to carry out such compliances on his behalf. The
petitioner placed complete trust and reliance upon the said
accountant/local advocate for ensuring timely and proper
compliance with all legal and statutory requirements, including
those under the GST laws. However, during the relevant period,
the said accountant/local advocate neither informed the petitioner
about the requirement of online filing of GST returns nor filed the
same on their own accord. As a result of this omission and lack of
communication, the GST returns for a continuous period of six
months could not be filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that there was justifiable
reason for the petitioner to have not filed the GST returns and
thus, the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned by the
authorities. It has also been stated that the petitioner was also
unaware of issuance of any show cause notice as no physical show
cause notice was received by it and even the fact of passing of the
order in original dated 10.01.2023 was learned by it subsequently
and only thereafter, the appeal against the same was preferred,
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 02:22:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55219-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-12964/2025]
however, vide order dated 22.04.2025, the said appeal was
dismissed.
4. Learned Counsel, while relying on the judgments passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12076 of 2024 titled "M/s Molana Construction Company v.
Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors" decided on
26.07.2024, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14658 of 2024 titled "Man
Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax
Department & Ors." decided on 09th September 2024, D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 7260/2025 titled "RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors" decided on 02.07.2025 and D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 11794/2025 titled "RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors" decided on 12.08.2025 has prayed that the
Respondent Department be directed to entertain appeal of the
Petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes
the above submission and contends that the appeal has rightly
been dismissed being barred by limitation and no interference in
the order dated 22.04.2025 is warranted.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. It is a matter of record that the GST registration of the
petitioner was cancelled with effect from 28.02.2022 which is
virtually a civil death thereby bringing the business operations of
the petitioner at a stand still. As per the petitioner he was entirely
dependent on his accountant/local advocate for the purpose of
ensuring statutory compliances, as he himself is uneducated and
not technically competent to attend to such requirements. It is
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 02:22:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55219-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-12964/2025]
further stated that the petitioner was unaware of the issuance of
the show cause notice and the subsequent orders. Moreover, the
petitioner was not able to contact the accountant/tax consultant
who neither informed the petitioner about the requirement of
online filing of GST returns nor filed the same on his own accord
for the relevant period. The reasons mentioned in the petition for
non- compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act within the
prescribed time, in the considered opinion of this Court, appear to
be genuine.
8. This Court in the above relied upon judgments while allowing
the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal
on merits.
9. For the foregoing reasons and taking benefit of the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we allow the
present writ petition and accordingly, set aside the order dated
22.04.2025 (Annex.5) passed by the Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal
of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law, subject
to the petitioner firm depositing late fees, penalty and other
statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal, as admissible.
10. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
98-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 02:22:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
