2026 (6) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner submits that while dealing with an identical controversy, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shobhalal v. The Commissioner & Anr. :DBCWP No.13968/2022, had passed the following order: "1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondent No.1 to condone the delay of 356 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure-2), passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Udaipur, whereby recovery of Rs. 7,11,048/- along with interest and equal penalty and Rs. 80,000/- for tax period of 2012-15 was raised on the account of wilful evasion of service tax by the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 30.01.2021. However, the Appellate Authority vide or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imely steps within the prescribed period on account of circumstances which prevented it from effectively pursuing the available statutory remedy. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors argues that sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petition and all pending application stands disposed of." 3. Counsel representing the respondents fairly submits that the present controversy is identical to the controversy involved in the case of Shobhalal (supra). 4. Since the counsel representing the respondents has been fair enough, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present writ petition in the same terms as in the case of Shobhalal (supra) to the extent of condoning the delay occasioned in filing of the appeal by the petitioner. 5. The impugned order dated 10.11.2020 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No.3-Office of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax Range-IV, Jodhpur and, the order dated 23.12.2025 (Annex.5) passed by the respondent No.4-Office of t....