[2025:RJ-JP:22406-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8897/2023 M/s Khandelwal Medicals, Through Its Proprietor Shri. Pawan Kumar Sharma, S/o Parmeshwar Lal Sharma, Age 65 Years R/o Near Phagalwa Petrol Pump, Station Road, Sikar, Rajasthan - 332001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Kar Bhawan Ambedkar Circle C-Scheme Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Rajasthan 302005. 2. The Special Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Commercial Tax Department, Appellate Authority - III, State Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Circle-B Sikar, Ac/ Cto Ward, Sikar, Jaipur-I, Rajasthan. 4. Jurisdiction Officer, Cirlce-B Sikar, Ac/cto Ward, Sikar, Jaipur-I, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Ms. Kinjal Surana, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 28/05/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 17.05.2023, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as time barred. 2. The grievance raised is that the impugned order is a non- speaking order and has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. [2025:RJ-JP:22406-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8897/2023] 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 07.07.2025 at 11.00 A.M. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J GARIMA /Monika/73