Allowed

Santosh Devi, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2024CW/3888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of her GST registration appeal due to delay. The High Court held the rejection was made without a hearing or reasoned order, violative of natural justice. The impugned communication was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ was allowed; the impugned communication was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal.

Santosh Devi, Vs State of Rajasthan — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:28255-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3888/2024

¶4

Santosh Devi, Aged About 36 Years, Proprietor, Shri Balaji Marble 08, Singh Wali, Dhani Mohbbat Ward No- Bhainslana, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303107

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur-05

¶8

Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-Shahpura, Jaipur-I, Ward-Ii, Headquarter-Kotputli, Old Rto Office, Laxmi Nagar, Bidara, Shahpura

¶9

Union Of India, Through Secretary Finance, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sarvesh Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.D. Rastogi,ASG with Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha
	Mr. Sandeep Taneja,AAG for R-2
	Mr. Naved Rafiq
	Mr. Sandeep Pathak

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

08/07/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶15

This petition is filed seeking quashing of communication dated 30.10.2023 whereby, office of Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal for delay in submission.

¶16

The brief facts are that the petitioner was registered with the Goods and Service Tax Department. A show-cause notice dated 03.02.2023 was issued for cancellation of the registration on

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:28255-DB]

¶18

[CW-3888/2024]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

account of non-filing of returns for continuous period of six months. The registration was cancelled with effect from 13.03.2023 by order dated 13.03.2023. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the office of First Appellate Authority for delay in submission.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was rejected without affording an opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. Submission is that the appeal was to be filed within ninety days under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Appellate Authority had power to condone the delay upto thirty days. The appeal was filed late hence, rejected. 5. From perusal of the impugned order/ communication, it is evident that the communication is by Special Commissioner on behalf of the appellate authority. The heading is “Acknowledgment for submission of appeal”. In column ‘8’ reason for rejection is “delay in submission of appeal”.

¶22

It is trite law that a quasi judicial authority has to pass a reasoned order. In the case in hand, the appeal has been rejected without having been put before the appellate authority. The basic facts of date of the impugned order in appeal; the date of service of the order even have not been considered. The limitation shall be calculated from the date of service of the order. The impugned communication is not an order, in any case has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

¶23

[2024:RJ-JP:28255-DB]

¶24

[CW-3888/2024]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

The writ is allowed.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Simple Kumawat /13

Whether Reportable: Yes

Santosh Devi, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Devi, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Prakash Agroya S/O Late Shri Bansilal Agroya Vs Income Tax Officer

Hanuman Mineral and Grinding Mills, Vs State of Rajastan

Ashok Kumar Dusad S/O Shri Ram Sharan Dusad Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sagar Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

M/S Merulands Insurance Services Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

World Trade Park Limited Vs Income Tax Officer