Govind Traders Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Govind Traders challenging the rejection of its appeal against cancellation of GST registration solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled with effect from 13.11.2023 and the Order-in-Original was passed on 15.12.2023. According to the petitioner, its proprietor Govind Tak was not adequately educated and lacked the technical competence required to operate a computer or understand the online GST compliance system. He had therefore entrusted GST compliances to an accountant/local advocate, who allegedly neither informed him about the requirement of filing online GST returns nor filed them, resulting in non-filing of returns continuously for six months. The petitioner also stated that no physical show cause notice was received and that he became aware of the Order-in-Original only subsequently. His appeal was nevertheless dismissed on 10.07.2024 solely as time-barred without considering the grounds on merits.
The High Court observed that cancellation of GST registration was virtually a “civil death”, bringing the petitioner’s business operations to a standstill. Considering the petitioner’s dependence upon the accountant/local advocate and the circumstances explaining the failure to make timely statutory compliances, the Court found the reasons stated for non-compliance to be genuine. The Court followed its earlier Division Bench decisions in Molana Construction Company Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Department, Man Singh Tanwar Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department and RPC PSIPL JV Vs State of Rajasthan, where directions had been issued for entertaining delayed appeals on merits. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 10.07.2024 was set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits in accordance with law, subject to deposit of late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits as admissible. The Court did not itself direct immediate restoration of GST registration or adjudicate the cancellation dispute on merits.
Cases Discussed
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11794/2025; decided on 12.08.2025.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7260/2025; decided on 02.07.2025.
- Man Singh Tanwar Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14658/2024; decided on 09.09.2024.
- Molana Construction Company Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Department (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12076/2024; decided on 26.07.2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking restoration of GST registration with effect from the date of cancellation i.e. 13.11.2023 and setting aside of the Order-in Original dated 15.12.2023 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.07.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed solely on the ground of delay, and none of the grounds raised in the appeal were considered, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and the proprietor of the petitioner Govind Tak. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not adequately educated and lacks the requisite technical competence to operate a computer or to comprehend the complexities of the online filing system, including the procedural requirements pertaining to GST compliance. Therefore, he engaged the services of an accountant/ local advocate to carry out such compliances on his behalf. The petitioner placed complete trust and reliance upon the said accountant/local advocate for ensuring timely and proper compliance with all legal and statutory requirements, including those under the GST laws. However, during the relevant period, the said accountant/local advocate neither informed the petitioner about the requirement of online filing of GST returns nor filed the same on their own accord. As a result of this omission and lack of communication, the GST returns for a continuous period of six months could not be filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that there was justifiable reason for the petitioner to have not filed the GST returns and thus, the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned by the authorities. It has also been stated that the petitioner was also unaware of issuance of any show cause notice as no physical show cause notice was received by it and even the fact of passing of the order in original dated 15.12.2023 was learned by it subsequently and only thereafter, the appeal against the same was preferred, however, vide order dated 10.07.2024, the said appeal was dismissed
4. Learned Counsel, while relying on the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12076 of 2024 titled “M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors” decided on 26.07.2024, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14658 of 2024 titled “Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.” decided on 09th September 2024, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7260/2025 titled “RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors” decided on 02.07.2025 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11794/2025 titled “RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors” decided on 12.08.2025 has prayed that the Respondent Department be directed to entertain appeal of the Petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes the above submission and contends that the appeal has rightly been dismissed being barred by limitation and no interference in the order dated 10.07.2024 is warranted.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is a matter of record that the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled with effect from 13.11.2023 which is virtually a civil death thereby bringing the business operations of the petitioner at a stand still. As per the petitioner he was entirely dependent on his accountant/local advocate for the purpose of ensuring statutory compliances, as he himself is uneducated and not technically competent to attend to such requirements. It is Powered by TCPDF ([www.tcpdf.org](http://www.tcpdf.org)) further stated that the said accountant/local advocate neither informed the petitioner about the requirement of online filing of GST returns nor filed the same on his own accord for the relevant period. Due to this omission and lack of communication, the GST returns for a continuous period of six months could not be filed by the petitioner. The reasons mentioned in the petition for non- compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act within the prescribed time, in the considered opinion of this Court, appear to be genuine.
8. This Court in the above relied upon judgments while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
9. For the foregoing reasons and taking benefit of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we allow the present writ petition and accordingly, set aside the order dated 10.07.2024 (Annex.5) passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner firm depositing late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal, as admissible.
10. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
