M/S Param Infrawell Private Limited vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Held

The Court held that considering the substantial delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner's contentions had not been considered on merits even by the Adjudicating Authority, it was appropriate to allow the Petitioner's appeal to be heard on merits. This decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's order in a similar matter (M/s Ganpati Polymers), which granted time to prefer a statutory appeal and directed that the issue of delay be considered in light of the Petitioner pursuing remedies before higher courts. The Court directed that the appeal be restored to its original number before the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner was granted time to file any additional documents along with proof of payment of costs. The Appellate Authority was directed to give personal hearing notice to the Petitioner and then adjudicate the appeal on merits, passing a reasoned order. The Court explicitly noted that the Petitioner's contentions had not been considered on merits by the Adjudicating Authority.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Param Infrawell Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order was dated April 30, 2025, which was an appeal against an earlier order dated January 17, 2023. The initial order arose from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated November 8, 2022, alleging non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner admits not filing a reply to the SCN and not attending the personal hearing. The order dated January 17, 2023, cancelled the registration retrospectively from July 2, 2017. The Petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as being barred by limitation. The Petitioner also contends that a ground for cancellation, namely the principal place of business being non-existent, was not even mentioned in the SCN. The Respondent argued that the delay is not condonable, citing a coordinate bench decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority, filed with a substantial delay (from January 17, 2023, to December 13, 2024), ought to be considered on merits, despite being barred by limitation, especially considering the Petitioner was pursuing remedies before this Court and the Supreme Court? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argues that the impugned order is not sustainable as the grounds for cancellation, specifically the principal place of business being non-existent, were not even present in the Show Cause Notice. Furthermore, the Petitioner highlights that the delay in filing the appeal was substantial, but the matter was complicated by pursuing remedies before higher courts. The Petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's order in the case of M/s Ganpati Polymers, which allowed time for filing a statutory appeal and directed that the issue of delay be considered keeping in mind the Petitioner was pursuing remedies before the High Court and Supreme Court. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent contends that the delay is not condonable, citing the decision in W.P.(C) 14279/2024 titled M/s Addichem Speciality LLP Vs. Special Commissioner I, Department of Trade and Taxes and Anr. The Respondent also notes that the issue of whether delay ought to be condoned by the Adjudicating Authority itself is pending before the Supreme Court in Delhi Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/A.