Delhi HC Gives Second Chance in GST Appeal Filing citing Director's Illness [Read Order]
After considering the medical records and the factual circumstances, the High Court found the lapse to be "bonafide"
The Delhi High Court has provided relief to a company by permitting it to file a delayed appeal against a GST demand order, citing the director's medical condition as a valid reason for the lapse. The court, however, clarified that the final decision in the appeal would be subject to the outcome of a related matter currently pending before the Supreme Court.
The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain was hearing a petition that challenged a demand order for Rs. 75,78,297 for the financial year 2019-20. The petition also challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, which extended the time limits for adjudication.
The court noted that the validity of this specific notification is already under examination by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025, and various High Courts have delivered conflicting opinions on the matter.
The counsel for the petitioner, Ping Pong Global, argued that the company had been unable to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or appear for a personal hearing in August 2024. This was because one of its directors, Mr. Subhash Jain, who was managing the company's affairs, was suffering from a serious medical condition, for which relevant records were submitted to the court. The petitioner became aware of the adverse order only in May 2025.
After considering the medical records and the factual circumstances, the High Court found the lapse to be "bonafide". Instead of delving into the validity of the contentious notification, the court granted the petitioner a second chance to be heard.
It was informed that the petitioner is the President of a Trust that runs a Hospital at Dwarka. If that be so, the petitioner is presumed to have the knowledge of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) including the knowledge to know the manner in which a right/correct return is filed. Surely, it should not take nine months to realize that the initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return.
The court viewed that the authority below has rightly dismissed the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 10. The petition being without any merit is dismissed.
It permitted Ping Pong Global to file an appeal against the impugned order after making the necessary pre-deposit. The court stipulated that if the appeal is filed by January 10, 2026, it will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and will be adjudicated on its merits, with the final decision remaining subject to the Supreme Court's ruling on the related issue.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
