Death of Accountant Held Sufficient Cause for Delay: Delhi HC Allows Belated Filing, Subject to SC Ruling on Section 168A Extensions [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court allowed a belated statutory appeal against a Goods and Services Tax (GST) adjudication order after accepting that the delay, while making it clear that the relief granted would remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court on the validity of limitation-extension notifications issued under Section 168A of the CentralGoods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

The writ petition was filed by Aggarwal Traders, through its proprietor Ms. Jyoti Aggarwal, challenging an adjudication order passed pursuant to a show cause notice for the F.Y. 2019-20. The adjudication order raised a tax demand of ₹35,61,082. The petitioner also questioned the validity of Notification No. 09/2023 (Central Tax), Notification No. 09/2023 (State Tax), Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) and Notification No. 56/2023 (State Tax), which extended limitation periods for adjudication under the GST law.

The dispute arose as no reply was filed to the show cause notice and no personal hearing was availed, leading to an ex parte order. The petitioner contended that although documents were handed over to a tax consultant for filing an appeal, the consultant fell seriously ill and subsequently passed away, resulting in the appeal not being filed within time.

On behalf of the petitioner, Mohit Gupta, submitted that the petitioner had duly filed returns and discharged its tax liability, and that the failure to respond to the show cause notice and pursue appellate remedies was neither deliberate nor wilful. It was argued that the circumstances surrounding the death of the tax consultant constituted sufficient cause for the delay.

Further, submitted that even otherwise, the adjudication order was passed without effective opportunity of hearing and that the validity of the limitation-extension notifications themselves was under serious challenge before multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the adjudication order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction, as the petitioner had failed to file a reply to the show cause notice or participate in the adjudication proceedings.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

The Court noted that the broader challenge to the limitation-extension notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 was already pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025, and therefore any decision on that issue would bind the present case.

Taking into account the explanation furnished regarding the consultant’s death and relying on earlier decisions permitting belated appeals where writ petitions were pursued within limitation, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 by 15.01.2026, along with the requisite pre-deposit.

It was directed that such appeal shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation and shall be decided on merits. Further, the Court clarified that the outcome of the appeal would remain subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court on the validity of the impugned notifications and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the connected batch matters.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates