[2025:RJ-JP:22787-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5584/2024 M/s Sam Marketing, Through Its Proprietor Shri Anmol Bhargava S/o Shri Chetan Bhargava, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 5, Raghu Kamal Niwas, Mi Road, Near All India Radio, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner, State Good And Service Tax Department, Rajasthan, Z One- Jaipur-I, Circle - Circle-I, Jaipur I, Ward- Circle-I, Jaipur I, - Ward-Ii, Kar Bhawan, Jhalanadungari, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Appellate Authority-I, Room No. 116, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Union Of India, Through Its Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DP Sharma with Mr. Mukund Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinjal Surana, AGC for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG Mr. Kapil Sharma with Ms. Ishika Kothari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/05/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 11.03.2024, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as time barred. [2025:RJ-JP:22787-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5584/2024] 2. The grievance raised is that the impugned order is a non- speaking order and has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that power to condone the delay with the appellate authority is thirty days, whereas the delay is more. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it is merely an acknowledgement for submission of appeal, wherein in a computerized proforma blanks have been filled indicating that the appeal is rejected due to delay in submission. This acknowledgement does not qualify to be an order passed by the quasi-judical authority. Rather the receipt has been issued on behalf of the appellate authority meaning thereby that the appellate authority has neither heard the matter nor applied its mind. 5. Consequently, the impugned communication is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the issue of limitation afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. The petition is allowed. 7. In order to avoid further delay and complication, let the petitioner through his representative appear in the office of the respondent No.1 on 04.07.2025 at 11.00 A.M. (ANAND SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/71