MS Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on : 16 December 2024

Judgment pronounced on : 07 February 2025

W.P.(C) 14279/2024 and CM APPL. 59773/2024 (Interim Relief)

M/S ADDICHEM SPECIALLITY LLP .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupak Srivastava and Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Advs.

versus

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER I, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Udit Malik, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Vishal Chanda and Ms. Rima Rao, Advs.

W.P.(C) 15045/2024

JM FLEET MANAGEMENT PVT LTD …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vibhas Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajat Pandey and Ms. Manju Pandey, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES & ORS. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Shubham Goel, Mr. Mayank Kamra and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs, for R-1 to 3.

W.P.(C) 16861/2024

ENIA ARCHITECHTS …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Ajesh Kugan M, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ORS …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC and Mr. Anand Pandey, Adv.

W.P.(C) 5650/2024

ADITYA MADAAN …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar and Mr. B.K. Tripathi, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC and Mr. Anand Pandey, Adv.

W.P.(C) 13592/2024 and CM APPL. 56857/2024 (Stay)

JP POLYMERS …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anuj Saini and Mr. M. Subhramaniyam, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF GST, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Shubham Goel, Mr. Mayank Kamra and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs. For R-1 and 2.

W.P.(C) 15725/2024

MS GANGA BOX FACTORY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ANAND RATHORE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Mr. Paras Sharma, Mr. Harinder, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & ANR. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Raghuvendra Shukla, SPC with Mr. Anil Devlal, Advs. For UOI.

Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Subham Kumar and Mr. Kuldeep Mishra, Advs.

Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Shubham Goel, Mr. Mayank Kamra and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs.

W.P.(C) 13679/2024

M/S DELHI ENTERPRISES …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vibhas Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajat Pandey & Ms. Manju Pandey, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI & ORS. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Shubham Goel, Mr. Mayank Kamra and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs. for R-1 to 3.

Mr. Rajat Pandey, Mr. Vibhas Kumar Jha and Ms. Manju Pandey, Advs.

W.P.(C) 13757/2024

LOOMAGE INDIA THROUGH ITS PROPIETOR …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Abhay Chitravanshi, Ms. Aakriti Singh, Ms. Taniya Malhotra and Ms. Grisha Sharma, Advs.

versus

GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Shubham Goel, Mr. Mayank Kamra and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs. For R-1 and 2.

W.P.(C) 13760/2024

BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Khursheed Ahmad, M. Kamil, Mr. Sameed Salim and Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI AND OTHERS …..Respondents

Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv.

W.P.(C) 16038/2024

M/S PC QUALITY FURNITURE …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sermon Rawat and Mr. Harshit Jain, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI & ORS. ……Respondents

Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC with Ms. Gunjan Suyal and Mr. Aditya Goyal, Advs.

W.P.(C) 16067/2024

M/S JAI AMBY FURNITURE …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sermon Rawat and Mr. Harshit Jain, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI & ORS. ……Respondents

Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC with Ms. Gunjan Suyal and Mr. Aditya Goyal, Advs.

W.P.(C) 16936/2024

M/S VASS IMPEX …..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vibhas Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajat Pandey, Mr. Manju Pandey and Mr. Deepak Jha, Advs.

versus

THE JOINT COMMISIONER CGST APPEALS-II DELHI AND ANR. …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC with Mr. Anand Pandey, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. These batch of petitions emanate from the orders handed down by the Appellate Authority, wherein the Appellate Authority has negated the stand of the petitioners thereby dismissing their appeals on the ground of limitation as per Section 107 of the Central and Goods Services Tax Act, 2017, (1CGST Act.). The petitioners also seek the quashing of the Show Cause Notices, (2SCN) issued to them by the respondents and the restoration of their respective GST, (3Goods and Services Tax) registrations.

2. The main two issues of the petitioners herein are: -

i) Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act is authorized to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond one month after the expiration of the three-month period specified in Subsection (1) of Section 107 for filing an appeal against a decision or order issued by an adjudicating authority under the CGST Act? and

ii) Whether the appellate authority is empowered to condone a delay beyond the thirty-day period prescribed under Subsection (4) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017 or not, this Court, in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may direct the condonation of such delay. This can be done if the Court is satisfied that an exceptional case has been made out for such condonation or if the interest of justice demands it.

3. The petitioners in the aforementioned petitions are registered proprietors/dealers under the CGST Act, each holding different registration numbers. They were assessed by the respective adjudicating authorities which resulted in certain demands being raised against them and in some instances, their GST registrations being cancelled. Aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registrations and the demands imposed, the petitioners filed statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST. However, those appeals were not entertained and were dismissed due to delay in filing.

4. As the Central Government is yet to institute an Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners, aggrieved by the rejection of their appeals, have approached this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction. For the sake of convenience and for proper adjudication, each of the writ petitions will be discussed individually.

W.P. (C) 14279/2024

5. In the present writ petition, a SCN, bearing reference No. ZA070322183368F, was issued by respondent No. 2 on 31.03.2022, proposing the cancellation of the petitioner firm's GST registration on the ground of "non-commencement of business within six months from the date of registration," in the case of voluntary registration. The petitioner firm submitted a reply to the notice on 03.10.2022, providing explanations for the alleged discrepancies and furnishing the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with the GST provisions. Despite this, respondent No. 2 proceeded to cancel the petitioner firm's GST registration on 27.10.2022, with effect from the original date of registration, i.e., 07.06.2018.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order cancelling the GST registration, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act on 12.02.2024. However, by order dated 29.07.2024, the appeal was dismissed in limine, on the ground that the impugned order was of 27.10.2022 and the appeal was filed on 12.02.2024, which is beyond the prescribed time limit set forth in the provisions of sub-sections (1), (4Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority

(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.)

and (4), (5(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document