Delhi HC refuses to Condone Delay in GST Appeal, upholds Strict 4-Month Statutory Limitation in Moms Cradle Case [Read Order]
The Court observed that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and failed to disclose this material fact.
Condone-delay-Taxscan
Condone-delay-Taxscan
While dismissing the writ petition of M/s Moms Cradle Private Limited, the Delhi High Court has held that the strict 4-month statutory limitation period for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot be condoned, as the provision creates a special regime that excludes the general principles of condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
M/s Moms Cradle Private Limited, the petitioner, is an exporter of readymade garments. The dispute arose from two separate writ petitions: one challenging the withholding of a GST refund and another seeking permission to file a delayed statutory appeal against an order demanding payment for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The petitioner had claimed a refund of IGST, which was initially rejected but later partially allowed by the Appellate Authority to the tune of Rs. 32,52,301/-. However, the Department withheld this refund, citing a separate demand raised against the petitioner for fraudulent ITC availment.
Against the Order-in-Original dated 4th February, 2025, which raised the demand, the petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed period of three months, extendable by one month. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P. seeking condonation of the delay and permission to file the appeal.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal was filed late due to the director's severe illness and a lapse in verifying the order. It was also contended that the copy of the order uploaded on the portal was illegible, and the petitioner came to know of the order only when the refund matter was listed before the Court.
Per contra, the counsel for the respondents vehemently objected, stating that the petitioner's director had actively participated in the adjudication proceedings and the order was duly communicated via email on the registered address on the date it was passed. He argued that the petitioner's claim of ignorance was false and misleading.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, relying on its coordinate bench decision in M/s Addichem Speciality LLP, held that Section 107 of the CGST Act provides a specific and complete code for limitation, excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court observed that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and failed to disclose this material fact.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed W.P holding that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. In respect of W.P, the Court directed that the refund be passed and adjusted against the demand raised against the petitioner in accordance with law, thereby disposing of both petitions.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
