(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ or such other order in the Nature of Certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 20-02-2025 bearing No.ACCT/(A)/BGK/AO/73/2024-25/B-932 issued by the 1st Respondent produced Annexure-C; issue a writ or such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in Appeal No.GST/-927/2025-26 passed by the 2nd Respondent produced Annexure-D.)

Oral Order

1. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash the show cause notice dated 20.02.2025 bearing No.ACCT(A)/BGK/AO/73/2024-25/B-932 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C and to quash the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in Appeal No.GST-927/2025-26 by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D.

2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows :-

          The respondents issued show cause notices along with Form DRC-01 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the CGST Act, 2017') for the tax period 2020-2021 to the petitioner dated 08.11.2024 and 26.11.2024. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notices. The respondents without considering the contentions raised in the reply notice, passed an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 vide order dated 20.02.2025. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 along with an application for condonation of delay of 371 days in preferring the appeal. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.05.2026 rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a delay in filing the appeal and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. He submits that respondent No.2 without assigning any reasons has rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. He submits that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court must be liberal.

5. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mst. Katiji's case (supra). He has also placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Jaganu S/o Punnu Jadhav vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another in W.P.No.204128/2025 disposed of on 24.04.2026. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal and hence, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application and consequently dismissed the appeal. Therefore, on this ground, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 20.02.2025 to the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the said notice was replied by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the said notice preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 along with an application for condonation of delay of 371 days in filing the appeal. Respondent No.2 without considering the statement made in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has proceeded to reject the application.

9. I have perused the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, wherein no reasons were assigned for rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. As such, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without application of mind. Hence, on this ground alone itself, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be set-aside.

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

          ii) The order dated 04.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed;

          iii) The Appeal in No.GST-927/2025-26 is restored to its original file;

          iv) The petitioner is directed to furnish the copy of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.204128/2025 to respondent No.2;

          v) Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay in terms of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.204128/2025 dated 24.04.2026;

          vi) Respondent No.2 is directed to pass an order after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of three months;

          vii) The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 26.05.2026.