[2025:RJ-JP:47490-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10804/2025 M/s Friends Cards, B-2, Ratanson Mansion, Transport Nagar, Jaipur-302004 Through Its Partner Shri Ashish Goyal ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy/joint Commissioner, Circle-A, Jaipur-II, Zonal Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner (Appeals) GST Jaipur-II, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 4. Chief Commissioner, CGST, New Central Revenue Building, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore Mr. Aaditya Godara Ms. Yuvika Pilania,AGC Mr. Rohan Mittal Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Palash Gupta HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/11/2025 1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 17.03.2025 whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected on the ground of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 107 (4) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) the appeal could be filed within a period of three months. Further, delay in filing the appeal up to period of [2025:RJ-JP:47490-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-10804/2025] one month could be condoned by the concerned Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel submits that he had now given reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal and pointed out that the impugned order had been placed on the common portal but the appellant was not able to download the orders within time as the Accountant working with the appellant had expired. The death certificate has also been placed before the concerned Appellate Authority who however, refused to condone the delay. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have objected and pointed out that the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant and once he knew the fact of death of the Accountant, he should have searched out the orders which may have been available on E-mail. 5. We have considered the submission and perused the impugned order dated 17.03.2025. 6. We find that though learned Appellate Authority has noticed the provision of Section 107 (4) of the Act but has also noticed that the Accountant of the petitioner has expired on 25.04.2021 whereas, the order was passed on 30.03.2024 but has failed to take notice that the impugned order had been posted on the portal and E-mail address of the Accountant who had already expired. Resultantly, it appears that there has been non-application of mind to this aspect. The appellate order therefore cannot be allowed to be sustained, the same is accordingly set aside. The appeal is directed to be heard on merits within a period of four months from today and a speaking order [2025:RJ-JP:47490-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-10804/2025] may be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. With the said observation, the writ petition is partly allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /112