Sainik Mining Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Date: May 18, 2025
Subject Matter
Limitation is counted from the date of communication of the order
Summary
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, challenged the dismissal of their appeal regarding the cancellation of their GST registration. The registration was cancelled on July 3, 2024, but the petitioner only filed the appeal on December 5, 2024, claiming they were unaware of the cancellation order until November 2024 when attempting to file a GST return. The petitioner argued that they had not received a copy of the cancellation order, thus the limitation period for filing the appeal should not start from the cancellation date. A typographical error in the appeal memo incorrectly stated the communication date as July 3, 2024. The respondent contended that according to the appeal memo, the cancellation order was indeed served on July 3, 2024, and thus the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond thirty days. The court noted that the appellate authority did not address the crucial issue of when the petitioner received the cancellation order, which is essential in determining the start of the limitation period for filing an appeal. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merits, including a specific finding on the date from which the limitation should be calculated. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were directed to appear before the designated authority on June 19, 2025, at 11:00 AM to expedite the process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. This petition is filed aggrieved of dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of limitation.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 03.07.2024. The appeal was filed on 05.12.2024. As per the case of petitioner, the knowledge of order cancelling the registration was gained in November, 2024 while trying to file GST return.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of cancellation order was not served upon the petitioner and hence, the limitation shall not run from the date of order. It is further argued that by typographical mistake in the memo of appeal the date of communication of order was written as ‘03.07.2024’.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted case as per the memo of appeal the copy of cancellation order was served on 03.07.2024. The contention is that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order it is forthcoming that the issue with regard to date of communication of the order cancelling the registration has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. The limitation is counted from the date of communication of the order impugned.
7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the issue on merits afresh after giving a specific finding as to from which date the limitation starts.
8. The writ petition is allowed.
9. To avoid further delay, let the parties appear before the office of the respondent No.3 on 19.06.2025 at 11:00 AM.