Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Nau Chamunda Minerals vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:43900-Db) on 7 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:43900-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9907/2025
M/s Nau Chamunda Minerals, Situated At Tak Bhawan, Near
Secondary School, Borunda, Bilara, Jodhpur 342604 Through Its
Partner Smt Madhu Devi W/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Tak,
Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Secondary School, Borunda,
Bilara, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary Department Of
Revenue, Ministry Of Finance North Block, New Delhi.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Finance Through Its
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Goods And Service Tax Council, Through Its Secretary,
5Th Floor, Tower Ii, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
4. Commissioner Of State Tax, Rgst, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar
Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
5. Assistant Commissioner Circle-E, Ward-2, Jodhpur-Ii,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG (through VC)
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra
Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
07/10/2025
1. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Sharad
Kothari states that for the present, petitioner will not press
alternate prayer of challenge to notification No.53/2023 dated
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:16:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43900-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-9907/2025]
02.11.2023 as well as provision under Section 107 (4) of the
CGST/RGST Act, 2017. Counsel states that it may be left open for
the moment and petitioner, if deemed fit, may seek same prayer
in other proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has demonstrated
from the record the following facts-
(i) The Petitioner firm is a partnership comprising of Smt
Madhu Tak and Smt Anita Tak, wives of Shri Rajendra Kumar
and Manohar Lal Tak, respectively.
(ii) The Petitioner firm commenced mining activities using
various assets and equipment purchased on loan.
Unfortunately, the business failed and the liability of the
creditors mounted.
(iii) Mr. Rajendra Kumar (husband of Ms. Madhu Tak) held
himself responsible for the rising financial stress of the
family and suffered from clinical depression which drove him
to take his own life on 11.06.2022 by hanging.
(iv) In the intervening period Mr. Manohar Lal (husband
Smt Anita Tak) contacted HIV from his wife, who in turn was
infected on account of botched up DNC procedure.
(v) Mr. Rajendra Kumar and Smt. Madhu Tak's son, Aarav,
aged 29, was diagnosed with onset of cardiac condition that
is LVH-left ventricular hypertrophy in December 2022.
(vi) By February - March 2023, the lending bank started
issuing communication demanding repayment of loans given
to members of the family, failing which the joint dwelling
house would be attached.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:16:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43900-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-9907/2025]
(vii) In April 2023, Mr. Manohar Lal (husband of Smt. Anita
Tak) was advised to undergo a surgery while suffering from
other disabilities and ailments like HIV, diabetes. He was also
found to be suffering from trauma induced anxiety.
(viii) Before the family could gather resources to handle the
loan & business outstanding, the RGST department through
Respondent No. 5 issued Show Cause notices dated
09.05.2023 for the years 2018-19 to 2020-21 which
culminated into orders dated 13.06.2023.
3. Learned Counsel submits that in the above backdrop of
financial and medical difficulties, the Petitioner could neither
participate in the adjudication nor could prefer appeal against the
orders dated 13.06.2023 within the statutory limitation period.
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.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:16:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43900-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-9907/2025]
5. Learned ASG Mr. Bharat Vyas and learned AAG Mr.
Mahaveer Bishnoi jointly submit that statutory period of limitation
cannot be relaxed and the same has to be adhered to strictly.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the
view that the medical and financial hardship pointed out by the
Petitioner are genuine as the same are supported by documents
placed on record; which documents have not been disputed by the
Respondents. Thus considering the above mentioned peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the
petitioner could not file the appeal within time for the reasons
beyond its control.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of the present
writ petition by directing the appellate authority to register and
decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits, if the same is filed
within a period of one month from today, subject to the petitioner
firm depositing late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits for
entertaining the appeal.
8. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
5-SP/Suraj/-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 06:16:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
