[2025:RJ-JP:47559-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2819/2025 M/s Munch Box 251, Having Its Principal Place Of Business At - Ground And Basement, D-251, Devi Marg, Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302016, Through Its Partner- Mr. Vipul Maini. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001 Through Its Secretary. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin Code- 302005, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Circle-H, Jaipur-I, Ward-Ii, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Commercial Taxes Department, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302004. 4. Special Commissioner, Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Bhawani Singh Rd, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin Code-302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Mehta, Mr. Jaideep Malik, Mr. Keshav Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Aaditya Godara, AAAG, Mr. Rohan Mittal, Mr. Arvind kumar Pareek, Mr. Vaibhav Pareek 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 has been filed by the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of being time barred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was within the time, if the same was to be calculated from the date the [2025:RJ-JP:47559-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2819/2025] rectification order was passed. While the original order was passed on 21.12.2023, the petitioner had moved a rectification application, which was rejected, and the rectified order was passed on 21.05.2024, considering that the original order would merge in the rectified order. It would be rectified order which could be treated as the order in original and the appeal would lie against the said rectified order and the time has to be counted from the said date of communication of the said order. 3. He submits that the appeal was preferred on 17.08.2024 and was, thus, within the limitation period as provided under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act'). However, the learned Appellate Authority has counted the appeal to be calculated from the date when the original order was passed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further contest and submits that since the original order was challengeable in appeal, the period of limitation has to be counted from the first date alone and three months' time has expired by the time when the appeal was filed, and therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions. 6. After an original order has been passed either under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, an appeal would lie to be under Section 107 of the Act, which has to be filed within period of three months', delay of one month can be condoned. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Appellate Authority would have no power to further condone the delay as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Technimont Private Limited (Formerly [2025:RJ-JP:47559-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2819/2025] Known As Technimont ICB Private Limited) vs State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 12 SCC 477. 7. At the same time, appeal against an order which has been passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act. It is notified that Section 161 of the Act, also allows the person to move a rectification application to the order passed, and if the Authority finds that the rectification is required, they may pass an order and rectify its original order. The question before us lies as to when the limitation starts, if the rectification order has been passed while the original order is required to be separately challenged even if rectification application is pending and the appeal would lie against the original order, it cannot be said that the rectification order merges with the original order. Be that as it may, the delay in filing of an appeal, can be said to be a genuine reason for waiting of the rectification. 8. We, therefore, condone the delay and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the original order as well as the rectification application on merits, and decide the same without delving on the issue of limitation. We, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority, and allow this writ petition, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a period of four months from today on merits, after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. 10. All pending applications, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Seema /110