Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th September, 2025
MOVERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla SSC CBIC,
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for Ms. Vaishali Guptal, Adv. for GNCTD.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 55570/2025 (for Exemption)
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 13555/2025 & CM APPL. 55569/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 5th June, 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi (hereinafter impugned order), by which delay of 16 days in filing the appeal has not been condoned by the Appellate Authority, on the ground that there is no sufficient cause.
4. The observation of the Appellate Authority in the impugned order reads as under: 4.[1] I have carefully gone through all the documents available on record and various submissions made by the appellant. Firstly, I will examine whether the instant appeal has been filed within statutory period or not. I find that, in terms of section 107(1), the last date of filing the instant appeal, which has been filed against the Order-In-Original No. ZD070824102557B dated 29.08.2024, was 28.11.2024 which has been filed by the appellant on 14.12.2024 i.e. after a delay of 16 days. I find that the delay of upto one month can be condoned under section 107(4) of CGST Act, 2017 if sufficient cause is shown. In the instant case. I find that the appellant in its condonation application stated that upon receiving the impugned order, the filed a rectification application on 02.09.2024 but the said application was not disposed off by the proper officer due to which their appeal got delayed. I find that section 107(4) specifically stressed upon 'sufficient cause' and in the appellant's case, I do not find any evidence substantiating the appellant's contention. Further, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. has held as under: Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay.
5. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the instant appeal is hit by limitation and liable to be rejected on this count alone without going into merits of the case. Accordingly, I pass the following order: Order
6. The appeal filed by M/s Movers International Pvt. Ltd., 44, LGF, World Trade Center, Babar Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 against Order-in-Original No. ZD070824102557B dated 29.08.2025 is hereby rejected and disposed of in terms of Section 107(12) of CGST Act, 2017.”
5. The Order-in-Original challenged before the Appellate Authority, was dated 29th August, 2024. The total period available for filing of the appeal would be three months plus one month, in terms of Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the Central Goods and Service Act, 2017 (hereinafter CGST, Act). The said provisions read as under: “(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. (4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.”
6. As per the above provisions, the total limitation is three months plus one month, if sufficient cause is found.
7. The Appellate Authority has held that the pendency of the rectification application, which was filed by the Appellant on 2nd September 2024, was not a sufficient cause.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner was awaiting the order on the rectification application, in a bonafide manner and hence, did not approach the Appellate Authority.
9. Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. SSC for the Respondent points out that the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority has been following the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors (Supra).
10. The Court has heard the Counsels for the parties. In W.P.(C) 14279/2024 titled M/s AddichemSpeciallity LLP Vs. Special Commissioner I, Department of Trade and Taxes and Anr., this Court has already held that the delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned, beyond the period permitted in the statute.
11. Be that as it may, in the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the 16 days delay is within the one month period, as contemplated under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, and the filing of rectification application cannot be out-rightly rejected, as not constituting a sufficient cause.
12. Several High Courts, while dealing with the issue of delay in filing of appeal beyond the period stipulated under Section 107 of the CGST Act, have held that while exercising the power under writ jurisdiction, the Court may condone such delay if it is satisfied qua the sufficient cause.
13. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while examining the said issue in Writ Petition No. 33509 of 2023 titled Shaik Abdul Azeez v. State Of Andhra Pradesh held as under:
'APGST Act') which was rejected at the admission stage on the ground that it was barred by limitation and beyond the condonable statutory period. xxxx
9. In para-4 of the affidavit it is deposed that the petitioner had undergone surgery and was unable to look after his business. In para-7 of the affidavit it is submitted that the order of cancellation of registration was not communicated to the petitioner physically and on account of the petitioner's health condition, the petitioner could also not be aware of the impugned order. xxxx
12. Though the impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay. The appeal is a valuable statutory right. In exercise of writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Costs shall be deposited in two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the appellate authority.”
14. Further, the Calcutta High Court, in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 5885 titled Kajal Dutta v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. held as under: “3. The correctness of the stand taken by the appellant that he was sick and unable to take steps to file the appeal within the period of limitation is not disputed by the Revenue. However, the appellate authority was of the opinion that the period of one month beyond the statutory period of limitation is available to the said authority, which expired on June 30, 2022 and the appeal was presented only on August 17, 2022 and therefore, the appeal is barred by the law of limitation. It is true that in terms of section 107(1) read with section 107(4) of the G. S. T. Act, the time-limit for preferring the appeal beyond the period of three months is 30 days, which is a grace period. However, the statute does not state that beyond the said date, the appellate authority cannot exercise jurisdiction. It is not a case that deliberately the appellant had presented the appeal beyond the condonable period. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution this court can examine the factual circumstances and grant appropriate relief as the appellate remedy is a very valuable remedy since the appellate authority can re-appreciate the factual position. Thus, for such reason, we are inclined to exercise discretion.
4. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the appellate authority dated August 17, 2022 is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority is condoned and the appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant.”
15. In the overall facts of this case, the Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for 16 days delay in filing the appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned, subject to Rs. 5,000/-, as costs to be paid to the GST Department by the Petitioner.
16. The appeal is now restored to its number before the Appellate Authority.
17. Let the Petitioner appear before the Appellate Authority on 11th November, 2025. The appeal shall now be heard on merits.
18. The proof of costs to be deposited with the GST Department, be furnished before the Appellate Authority.
19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms along with all pending application (s), if any.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/kp/sm