[2025:RJ-JP:36302-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9691/2024 1. M/s Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services Llp, Having Its Address At C-77, B-F, C-Scheme, Shyam Apartment, Sarojini Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Designated Partner, Shri Michael Ellis, S/o Shri John Ellis (Deceased), Aged About 40 Years, Having His Address At 11 Patonga Road, City Beach, Western Australia. 2. Aparajit Bhattacharya, Designated Partner Of Petitioner No. 1, S/o Shri Arnab Bhattacharya (Deceased), Aged About 45 Years, Having His Address At 603A, The Magnolias, Dlf Golf Links, Dlf Phase 5, Gurgaon 122009, Haryana ----Petitioners Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Unit -B, Business Audit Wing - Iii, Jaipur, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Assistant Commissioner, Ward-2, Circle-I, Zone-Iii, Jaipur, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Room No. 430, Zonal Kar Bhavan, Jhalana, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Chief Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 5. Government Of Rajasthan, Finance Department, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Having Its Address At 1St Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan 6. Union Of India, Through Secretary Finance, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Mathew Advocate with Mr. Krishnaveer Singh Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Boob Advocate & Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General with Jai Vardhan Joshi Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order [2025:RJ-JP:36302-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9691/2024] 09/09/2025 1. This petition is challenging an adjudication order dated 18th August 2023, recovery notice dated 01st February 2024 and order of Appellate Authority passed on 28th March 2024. The Appellate Authority, by impugned order dated 28th March 2024, has dismissed the appeal only on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed. Reason for rejection is shown “delay in submission of appeal”. 2. Petitioners’ case, as submitted by Mr. Shashi Mathew is that there was a delay of 129 days in filing appeal. In the application for condonation of delay and in petition, it is stated that appellant “gained proper knowledge and understanding” of the impugned order dated 18th August 2023 only when the consequent recovery notice dated 01st February 2024 was served upon one of the designated partners of petitioners. 3. When we asked counsel what is the meaning of “gained proper knowledge and understanding”, it was stated that order was only uploaded in portal. When we repeatedly asked counsel to show the averment that the impugned order dated 18th August 2023 was only uploaded in the portal, goal post was shifted to say by email also. 4. The application for condonation of delay states that petitioners have been operating in India with skeleton staff and have not employed any finance personnel since 01st May 2020, the concerned appellant is not actively pursuing any contact in India since 01st May 2020, the concerned personnel responsible for the finance function and tax function during the relevant period, i.e., July 2017 to March 2018, Mr. Sumit Arora had also resigned much [2025:RJ-JP:36302-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9691/2024] prior to passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 18th August 2023 and it was his email address, which was registered with the respondent’s office and all communications with the tax department, by and to appellant and, therefore, due to lack of personnel in India, appellant could not get the email address updated in the records of the department. It does not say that the order was only uploaded in the portal. It does not say when said Mr. Sumit Arora resigned. If Mr. Sumit Arora had resigned, it was the duty of appellant to have immediately informed registered with respondents as also the tax department, who the other person will be or which is the alternate email address. 5. Appellants failure to do any of this can be viewed as an attempt to avoid or evade the laws of the land. 6. In our view, there is no justification for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 7. Petition dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-55