[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Damodhartech International ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:6707-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22461/2025
M/s Damodhartech International Private Limited, Having Its
Office At Rawatbhata Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Through Its
Authorized Representative Mr. Ashwini Bhat S/o Hriday Nath
Bhat, Aged About 59 Years Working As Managing Director.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, State Goods
And Services Tax, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. The Appellate Authority, State Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Union Of India, Through Its Commissioner, Central Goods
And Services Tax, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari
Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
05/02/2026
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction
commanding respondent No.3 to condone the delay of 77 days in
filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 27.08.2024
(Annexure-2), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby GST
demand of Rs.39,84,894/- for Financial Year 2019-2020 was
raised on the account of excess availment of Input Tax Credit by
the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on
12.03.2025. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6707-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-22461/2025]
06.10.2025 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it
does not have the power to condone the delay of 77 days in filing
the appeal.
2. The petitioner humbly submits that the delay in filing the
appeal occurred due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances.
Around the time of passing of the impugned order dated
27.08.2024, the accountant responsible for handling the GST
affairs of the petitioner had resigned and the said post remained
vacant, due to which the impugned order escaped the notice of
the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner could not prefer an
appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107
of the CGST Act.
2.1 The petitioner does not carry on regular business activities in
the State of Rajasthan and had obtained GST registration therein
only for execution of a specific contract awarded by the
Government of Rajasthan, which was completed in FY 2020-21.
Since there has been no turnover or business activity thereafter,
the petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings initiated
under the said registration. The absence of business activity,
coupled with the resignation of the accountant, resulted in an
inadvertent and bonafide delay in filing the appeal.
2.2 The petitioner is a regular assessee in the State of
Maharashtra and has never defaulted in statutory compliances.
The delay is neither intentional nor mala fide, and no prejudice
would be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned.
2.3. The appeal challenging the order dated 27.08.2024 was
ultimately filed on 12.03.2025 and was dismissed vide order dated
06.10.2025 by the Appellate Authority.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6707-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-22461/2025]
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 Molana
Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax
Department & Ors1, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner,
Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. 2, RPC
PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 3 and RPC PSIPL JV
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors4 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 107 of the RGST Act, 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.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6707-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-22461/2025]
7. In the judgments cited above, this court, while allowing the
writ petitions, issued directions to entertain the appeal on
merits.
8. In the premise, following the same view as already taken by
various Coordinate Benches of this Court, ibid, with which we are
in agreement, we allow the present writ petition to the extent of
condoning the delay of 77 days in filing of the appeal by the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain
the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
10. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
5-suraj/-
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:09 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
