Delhi Iron Stores vs. Commisisoner Of Central Tax Delhi South & Anr.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 06.08.2026
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: “i. to Condone the delay in filing of the appeal u/s 107 of CGST Act 2017, before the Appellate Authority against the two Rectification orders dated 11.04.2025(Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent, wherein an amount of Rs 29,92,181/-each on account of tax and penalty had been imposed for the financial year 2019-20. ii. To admit and decide the appeal on merits and grant interim protection against coercive recovery against the two-recovery notice dated 11.11.2025(AnnexureP-9) till the disposal of the appeal.”
At the outset, it is noticed that the Petitioner has admittedly not yet instituted any appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before the competent Appellate Authority. Consequently, no application seeking condonation of delay in filing This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:46:32
such appeal is presently pending before the said Authority.
The principal relief sought in the present Writ Petition is for condonation of the delay in filing an appeal which is yet to be instituted. The statutory scheme contemplates that an appeal, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay, is required to be presented before the Appellate Authority, which would thereafter consider the question of limitation in accordance with law. In the absence of any appeal having been filed before the competent Appellate Authority, this Court cannot be called upon to exercise its writ juri iction for the purpose of condoning the delay in anticipation of such an appeal being instituted.
It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily does not bypass the statutory mechanism, particularly when the remedy provided under the statute has not even been invoked. The question whether the delay, if any, deserves to be condoned is one that must first arise before, and be considered by, the Appellate Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the settled principles governing condonation of delay.
Insofar as the prayer seeking interim protection against coercive recovery is concerned, the same is consequential to the proposed appeal. Since no appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the said relief also cannot be considered in the present proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. The same is accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the Petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be available to it in accordance with law. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:46:32
The pending application shall stand closed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 06, 2026 jai/pal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:46:32
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.