[2025:RJ-JP:20904-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3195/2025 M/s. Sainik Mining and Minerals Coy, 06, Ward No, Unnamed Road, Balloopura, Sikar, Rajsthan, 332718, Through Proprietor Sandeep S/o Jagdish, Age about 38 Years, Resident of 651/2 Madhu Vihar, Rewari, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, State of Rajasthan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. Appellate Authority, State Tax Jaipur Third, Jaipur. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Circle Neemkathana, Jaipur-IV, AC. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aditya Sharma Mr. Shantanu Gupta for Mr. Vedant Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 19/05/2025 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of limitation. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 03.07.2024. The appeal was filed on 05.12.2024. As per the case of petitioner, the knowledge of order cancelling the registration was gained in November, 2024 while trying to file GST return. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of cancellation order was not served upon the petitioner and hence, the limitation shall not run from the date of order. It is further [2025:RJ-JP:20904-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3195/2025] argued that by typographical mistake in the memo of appeal the date of communication of order was written as ‘03.07.2024’. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted case as per the memo of appeal the copy of cancellation order was served on 03.07.2024. The contention is that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order it is forthcoming that the issue with regard to date of communication of the order cancelling the registration has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. The limitation is counted from the date of communication of the order impugned. 7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the issue on merits afresh after giving a specific finding as to from which date the limitation starts. 8. The writ petition is allowed. 9. To avoid further delay, let the parties appear before the office of the respondent No.3 on 19.06.2025 at 11:00 AM. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J GARIMA /15