Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Aainath Travels vs Central Goods And Service Tax ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:46985-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18270/2024
M/s Aainath Travels, R/o, Garh Shergarh, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Goods And Service Tax Department, Through The
Commissioner New Central Revenue Building Statute
Circle, Jaipur, (Raj.)
2. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax,
Jodhpur (Raj).
3. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods And Service
Tax, Jodhpur. G-105, New Jodhpur Industrial Area,
Jodhpur.
4. Superintendent, Cgst, Range-Iii, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain
Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Rishabh Dadhich for
Mr. Rajvendra Sarswat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
27/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
restoration of GST registration with effect from the date of
cancellation i.e. 14.03.2023 and setting aside of the Order-in
Original dated 14.03.2023 and the Order-in-Appeal dated
20.09.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed solely on the
ground of delay and none of the grounds raised in appeal have
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:28:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46985-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-18270/2024]
been considered, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It has
been submitted that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and the
proprietor of the petitioner - Sushila is dependent upon her
husband for all statutory compliances, including filing of GST
returns and it was only on account of ill-health of her husband,
who had undergone major surgery, that the GST returns 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 14.03.2023 was learnt by it
subsequently and only thereafter, the appeal against the same
was preferred. However, vide order dated 20.09.2024, the said
appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay, thereby
causing grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
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
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:28:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46985-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-18270/2024]
"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 20.09.2024 is warranted.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. It is a matter of record that GST registration of the
petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 14.03.2023 which is
virtually a civil death thereby bringing the business operations of
the petitioner at a stand still. As per the petitioner, Kana Ram
Suthar, husband of the petitioner's proprietor, was entrusted with
the responsibility to file the returns and to ensure all the legal and
statutory compliances, however, he having undergone a major
surgery, was unable to file returns continuously for 6 months and
the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The husband
of the petitioner's proprietor was diagnosed with Inj. Induration
Right Gluteal region and heavy gangrene of gluteal region and was
advised to rest for next 6 months. The reasons mentioned in the
petition for non-compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act
within the prescribed time, in the considered opinion of this Court,
appears 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.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:28:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46985-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-18270/2024]
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
20.09.2024 (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.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
9-SP/-
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:28:42 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
