[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 27886U / 2022Shobhalal vs The Commissioner (Appeals) ... on 29 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20306-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13968/2022
Shobhalal S/o Satyanarayan Champawat, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o 56, Tilak Nagar, Sector No.3, Hiran Magri, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner (Appeals), Office Of Commissioner
(Appeals), Central Goods And Service Tax Commissioner,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service
Tax, Division- B, Block- 4B, 4Th Floor, Lic India, Reti
Stand Divisional Office, Sub City Centre, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. PD Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav with Mr. Nilesh
Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
29/04/2026
Per : Arun Monga, J
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction
commanding respondent No.1 to condone the delay of 356 days in
filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.06.2019
(Annexure-2), passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Udaipur,
whereby recovery of Rs. 7,11,048/- along with interest and equal
penalty and Rs. 80,000/- for tax period of 2012-15 was raised on
the account of wilful evasion of service tax by the petitioner. The
appeal against the said order was filed on 30.01.2021. However,
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 09:35:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20306-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-13968/2022]
the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.07.2021 dismissed the
appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power
to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
2. It is further submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated
27.09.2018, pertaining to the period April 2013 to March 2015,
culminated in an ex parte Order-in-Original dated 26.06.2019, a
copy of which was received by the petitioner only on 11.11.2020.
Upon receipt of the said order, the petitioner took steps to
challenge the same by filing an appeal on 30.01.2021, which came
to be decided vide order dated 14.07.2021.
2.1. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner, being
aggrieved by the appellate order, approached this Court by way of
writ petition on 23.08.2022. The sequence of events clearly
demonstrates that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter in
a bona fide manner and with due diligence, though there has been
some delay in availing the statutory remedy. Owing to these
circumstances, the petitioner could not take necessary steps
within the prescribed period. The delay was neither intentional nor
due to any negligence, but was caused solely by the lack of proper
professional assistance during the said period.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the
delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor
deliberate, but has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable
circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is submitted
that the petitioner could not take timely steps within the
prescribed period on account of circumstances which prevented it
from effectively pursuing the available statutory remedy.
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 09:35:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20306-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-13968/2022]
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the various
Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders
v. UOI1 M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods
and Service Tax Department & Ors2, Man Singh Tanwar v.
Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department
& Ors.3, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 4 and
RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 5 argues that
sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances
beyond control has been shown and thus appeal be directed to be
considered on merits after condoning the delay by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the above
submission and contends that the assessment order has rightly
been passed, appeal is now barred by limitation.
6. Having heard, as above, it transpires that while it is true that
the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of
limitation provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994
however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner
could not file its appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond
its control, non- adjudication of appeal on merits would cause
grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
7. In the judgments cited above in para 4 of preceding part of
instant order, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, issued
directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
1. 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
2. 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 09:35:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20306-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-13968/2022]
8. In the premise, following the consistent view as already
taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the
extent of condoning the delay of 356 days (after granting
relaxation of 90 days under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994) in
filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 14.07.2021
is set aside. Delay of more than 356 days in filing of the appeal is
condoned. The Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the
appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
10. Stay petition and all pending application stands disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
31-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 09:35:13 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
