"[2026:RJ-JP:547-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14753/2025 M/s Komatsu India Private Limited, 603, Ambition Tower, Agrasen Circle, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001 Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Mysore Srivatsa Raghvendra, Son Of Shri M.r. Srivatsa, Aged 56 Years, Resident Of 23, F 2, 4Th Model House Sstreet, Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 560004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance No. 137, North Block, Near Delhi - 110001. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 4. The Appellate Authority - III, State Tax, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-I, Zone Jaipur - III, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashasvi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ayush Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Aaditya Godara, AAAG Ms. Harshita Verma, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mittal, Adv. Mr. Janardan Pandit Garge, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 08/01/2026 1. Both the learned counsels fairly state that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court in Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:547-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14753/2025] the case of Eagle Trans Shipping and Logisitics India Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 decided on 06.11.2025, wherein this Court has considered the law as laid down in the case of Akshansh Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur- III; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2957/2024 reported in (2025) 30 Centax 113(Raj.), Assistant Commissioner(CT) LTU vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305(S.C.) and Technimont Private Limited(formerly known as Technimont ICB Private Limited) vs State of Punjab & Ors: (2021) 12 SCC 477. 2. Accordingly, we hold that so far as the appellate authority is concerned, it was correct in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, as the limitation period cannot be extended beyond the period as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, considering the nature of the case and the submissions raised before us, we find that the delay in filing the appeal was on reasonable grounds. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had already moved application and had already applied for cancellation of the registration, therefore, of course they would not be following the portal after the said period. The order has been passed after 15 months thereto and therefore, the delay in not noticing the impugned order is found to be reasonable and deserves to be condoned by this Court. 4. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition to the aforesaid extent and direct the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits and preferably decide the same within a period of six months. Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:547-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14753/2025] 5. The impugned orders dated 28.11.2023 passed by Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Circle-I, Zone Jaipur-III and 11.07.2025 passed by Appellate Authority-III, State Tax, stand quashed and set aside. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACJ HEENA/30 Printed from counselvise.com "