Harish Rajput vs The Chief Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax

1. Heard Shri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kuldeepak Nag, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally being decided at the admission stage itself.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayer:- " It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation of impugned order in Original No. 127/AC/CGST/R-III/LKO- II/2021, dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division Lucknow-II, Lucknow and impugned order in Appeal No. 341-ST/APPL/LKO/2023 dated 17.05.2023 passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Custom, CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow as well as Final order No. FO/A/70565/2025-ST(SM) dated 11.08.2025 passed by learned Central, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad contained as Annexure No. 1, Annexure No. 2 and Annexure No. 4 respectively "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated

23.12.2021, under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for Service Tax (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1994) was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, i.e. an ex-parte order has been passed, whereas it is provided under the statute that an opportunity of hearing is necessary prior to the passing an order passed under Section 73 of the Act,

5. It is further submitted that the said order has been passed in contravention of the statutory provision. It is also submitted that the appeal has been rejected by passing an impugned order on the ground of delay, without 2 WTAX No. 1647 of 2025 considering that the alleged notices and the show cause notice were alleged to be sent to the hotel address of the petitioner during the Covid-19 period and the impugned order under Section 73 was also passed during the Covid-19 period and during the serious illness of the applicant, due to which he was unable to file the appeal within time.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, the letters were sent on

15.09.2020, 25.09.2020, 02.11.2020, 08.12.2020, after that show cause notice was issued on 27.12.2020, thereafter, letters were sent on 29.11.2021,

06.12.2021, 13.12.2021 and 20.12.2021 and when the petitioner had not responded, the order has been passed on 23.12.2021, which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the appeal has rightly been rejected on the ground of laches, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of more than three months.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner is not registered with the Service Tax Department and the address on which the alleged letters and notice, if ever sent, it must have been sent to the hotel address of the petitioner which was closed during the Covid-19 period i.e. since 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 and the notices and impugned order were of the said period, meaning thereby, that there is no question of service of those letters upon the applicant.

8. It is further submitted that as far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, for that, the reasons were given in the delay condonation application filed along with the appeal enclosing the medical documents of the illness of the petitioner which were neither considered nor disbelieved by the appellate authority while passing impugned order. Under circumstances, the appellate order is also liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment dated 19.06.2023, passed in Writ Tax No. 151 of 2025 in M/S Santosh Traders Through Proprietor Santosh Kumar versus State of U.P through Principal Secretary Tax and Registration Lucknow and two others. The relevant paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are quoted hereinbelow:- " 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inability on the part of the petitioner to prefer the aforesaid appeal within the prescribed period was due to some bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for delay.

9. It has further been argued that as per the provisions of Section 112 of the SGST Act, the petitioner has statutory remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 before the Appellate Tribunal and under the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2009, the limitation to file an appeal has not been expired. 3 WTAX No. 1647 of 2025

10. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments and orders: (i) Writ Tax No.822 of 2018, 'M/s Central Industrial Security Force, FGUTPP Unit Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Excise and Others'. (ii) Writ Tax No.42 of 2019, 'M/s Raj Enterprises and Another Versus Additional Commissioner, Aligarh and Another'. (iii) Writ Tax No.1224 of 2022, 'M/s Eastern Machine Bricks and Tiles Industries Private Limited Versus State of U.P. and Others' (iv) Writ Tax No.265 of 2023, 'M/s Jambudwip Exports and Imports Ltd. Versus State of U.P. and Another'.

12. Admittedly, the appeal was filed beyond time, however, in the peculiar set of facts and circumstances, the reason for delay prima facie, appears to be bona fide.

13. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection only to the extent that in case, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by moving an appropriate application before the same for the adjudication of the matter on merits.

14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without raising any objection on the limitation, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It is however, provided that if in the event, such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and decided on merits and shall be dealt with perfectly in accordance with law. "

9. Shri Kuldeepak Nag, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute the above mentioned submission and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. In view of the above, the impugned appellate order dated 17.05.2023 is hereby set aside.

11. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh on merits, in place of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.

12. The petitioner shall co-operate in the appellate proceedings and he will not take any unnecessary adjournment before the appellate court.

13. The writ petition is partly allowed. 4 WTAX No. 1647 of 2025

14. The appellate order dated 17.05.2023 and the order dated 11.08.2025, passed in FO/A/70565/2025-ST(SM) by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad are hereby quashed. December 18, 2025 DiVYa (Manish Kumar,J.) DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kuldeepak Nag, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally being decided at the admission stage itself.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayer:- " It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation of impugned order in Original No. 127/AC/CGST/R-III/LKO- II/2021, dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division Lucknow-II, Lucknow and impugned order in Appeal No. 341-ST/APPL/LKO/2023 dated 17.05.2023 passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Custom, CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow as well as Final order No. FO/A/70565/2025-ST(SM) dated 11.08.2025 passed by learned Central, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad contained as Annexure No. 1, Annexure No. 2 and Annexure No. 4 respectively "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated

23.12.2021, under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for Service Tax (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1994) was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, i.e. an ex-parte order has been passed, whereas it is provided under the statute that an opportunity of hearing is necessary prior to the passing an order passed under Section 73 of the Act,

5. It is further submitted that the said order has been passed in contravention of the statutory provision. It is also submitted that the appeal has been rejected by passing an impugned order on the ground of delay, without 2 WTAX No. 1647 of 2025 considering that the alleged notices and the show cause notice were alleged to be sent to the hotel address of the petitioner during the Covid-19 period and the impugned order under Section 73 was also passed during the Covid-19 period and during the serious illness of the applicant, due to which he was unable to file the appeal within time.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, the letters were sent on

15.09.2020, 25.09.2020, 02.11.2020, 08.12.2020, after that show cause notice was issued on 27.12.2020, thereafter, letters were sent on 29.11.2021,

06.12.2021, 13.12.2021 and 20.12.2021 and when the petitioner had not responded, the order has been passed on 23.12.2021, which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the appeal has rightly been rejected on the ground of laches, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of more than three months.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner is not registered with the Service Tax Department and the address on which the alleged letters and notice, if ever sent, it must have been sent to the hotel address of the petitioner which was closed during the Covid-19 period i.e. since 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 and the notices and impugned order were of the said period, meaning thereby, that there is no question of service of those letters upon the applicant.

8. It is further submitted that as far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, for that, the reasons were given in the delay condonation application filed along with the appeal enclosing the medical documents of the illness of the petitioner which were neither considered nor disbelieved by the appellate authority while passing impugned order. Under circumstances, the appellate order is also liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment dated 19.06.2023, passed in Writ Tax No. 151 of 2025 in M/S Santosh Traders Through Proprietor Santosh Kumar versus State of U.P through Principal Secretary Tax and Registration Lucknow and two others. The relevant paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are quoted hereinbelow:- " 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inability on the part of the petitioner to prefer the aforesaid appeal within the prescribed period was due to some bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for delay.

9. It has further been argued that as per the provisions of Section 112 of the SGST Act, the petitioner has statutory remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 before the Appellate Tribunal and under the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2009, the limitation to file an appeal has not been expired. 3 WTAX No. 1647 of 2025

10. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments and orders: (i) Writ Tax No.822 of 2018, 'M/s Central Industrial Security Force, FGUTPP Unit Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Excise and Others'. (ii) Writ Tax No.42 of 2019, 'M/s Raj Enterprises and Another Versus Additional Commissioner, Aligarh and Another'. (iii) Writ Tax No.1224 of 2022, 'M/s Eastern Machine Bricks and Tiles Industries Private Limited Versus State of U.P. and Others' (iv) Writ Tax No.265 of 2023, 'M/s Jambudwip Exports and Imports Ltd. Versus State of U.P. and Another'.

12. Admittedly, the appeal was filed beyond time, however, in the peculiar set of facts and circumstances, the reason for delay prima facie, appears to be bona fide.

13. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection only to the extent that in case, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by moving an appropriate application before the same for the adjudication of the matter on merits.

14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without raising any objection on the limitation, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It is however, provided that if in the event, such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and decided on merits and shall be dealt with perfectly in accordance with law. "

9. Shri Kuldeepak Nag, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute the above mentioned submission and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. In view of the above, the impugned appellate order dated 17.05.2023 is hereby set aside.

11. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh on merits, in place of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.

12. The petitioner shall co-operate in the appellate proceedings and he will not take any unnecessary adjournment before the appellate court.

13. The writ petition is partly allowed. 4 WTAX No. 1647 of 2025

14. The appellate order dated 17.05.2023 and the order dated 11.08.2025, passed in FO/A/70565/2025-ST(SM) by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad are hereby quashed. December 18, 2025 DiVYa (Manish Kumar,J.) DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench