Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Shail Jain, JJ
SIMLA HOLDINGS – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX DIVISION ROHINI, DELHI WEST – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2469/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pradeep Singh Rawat, Mr. Girish Chandra, Mr. Pankaj Pandey
For the Respondents: Ms. Monica Benjamin, Ms. Nancy Jain
A party must adhere to limitation periods for filing appeals, and failure to disclose receipt of an order undermines their standing in court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition against order not uploaded on common portal - Petitioner claims not received due to sealing of premises under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Appeal time limit considered from portal upload date. (Paras 2, 4, 10)
(B) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 169 - Clarifying modes of service including physical delivery, registered post, or upload on common portal - Petitioner had duty to disclose receipt of physical order copy, failure to do so led to review petition. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the demand order affixed on 16.06.2023, claiming lack of communication due to non-upload on the common portal and subsequent sealing of premises. Respondent argues appeal is maintainable given service of order via physical copy.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner failed to file appeal on time and must adhere to limitation rules following order upload.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner disclosed physical receipt of the order in their petition and the implications for appeal timing.
Ratio Decidendi: Acknowledged that communication must comply with statutory provisions; clarified that non-communication must not impede the responsible litigant from meeting procedural requirements.
Result: Review petition allowed, original petition restored, and requirement to upload the order on the portal reiterated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing conducted via hybrid mode. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner claims non-communication of the order affects appeal rights. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent disputes maintainability of the writ. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court affirms duties of parties to disclose order receipt. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
% 28.08.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was disposed of vide judgment dated 20th February, 2024 in the following terms:
“1. Petitioner impugns order dated 16.06.2023 affirming the demand against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is constrained to file an appeal for the reason thattheorder isnot communicatedto it.He submits that order is normally communicated by being uploaded on thecommonportal.Subjectorderhasnotbeenuploaded on the common portal. He further submits that since the petitionerisfacingproceedingsunderthe Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002, office premises of the petitioner has been sealed and even physical copy of the order has not been received by it, if sent by the Department. He submits that this copy annexed to the petition was obtained from the office of the respondents, however, for the purposes of filing an appeal, the same would not W.P.(C)2469/2024 Page1of6 constitute a valid service.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice. He raises a preliminaryobjectionwithregard tothemaintainability of the subject petition and submits that petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal.
4. In view of the said objection, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to upload order dated 16.06.2023 on the common portal. On said order being uploaded, it would be open to the petitioner to avail of thealternative remedy offiling an appealin accordance with law. For the purposes of limitation, the date when the order is uploaded on the common portal shall be treated as the date of commencement of period of limitation for the purposes of filing the appeal.
5. Petition is disposed of in above terms. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of contentions raised by either party.
6. All rights and contentions of the patties are reserved.”
3. Areviewwaspreferred quathisjudgmentdated20thFebruary,2024on the ground that the Petitioner had concealed that the order dated 16th June, 2023wasinfactserveduponthePetitionerviaaphysicalcopyon17thAugust, 2023. Thus, in the review petition, on 29th April, 2024, the previous judgment dated 20th February, 2024 was recalled and the petition was restored to its original number. The relevant portions of this order are set below:
“REVIEW PET. 190/2024
6. Review petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 20.02.2024. It is contended that though the petitioner had stated that petitioner had obtained a physical copy oftheorderfromtheofficeoftherespondent,however, petitioner failed tostatethedate ofreceiptof theorder. He submits that the physical copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 17.08.2023 and limitation for filing an appeal in terms of Section 107 of the W.P.(C)2469/2024 Page2of6 CentralGoodsandServicesTaxAct,2017(hereinafter referred to as the Act) is three months and condonable by a further period of one month for the reasons to be shown. He submits that petitioner failed to file an appeal and subject petition was filed in the Registry on 17.02.2024 beyond the period of three months and condonable period of one month and this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time when order dated 20.02.2024 was passed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of Section 169 of the Act uploading on the common portal is one of the modes of the communication of the notice/orders and Section 169 (1) (a) stipulates that tendering of copy of the order physically as
