M/S Pacific Business Centre PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Connaught Place Division, Delhi & Ors.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside all coercive recovery proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, including but not limited to the communication dated 19.02.2025 and any action pursuant thereto, seeking recovery of alleged dues arising from Order-in- Original No. 03/Pacific/JK/Div-CP/2023-24 dated 29.05.2023; b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the aforesaid Order-in-Original dated 29.05.2023 was never validly served or communicated to the Petitioner in accordance with law, and consequently, the period of limitation for filing an appeal has not commenced; c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction permitting the Petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the said Order-in-Original within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, and direct that such appeal shall be entertained and adjudicated on merits without being rejected on the ground of limitation; d) Pending the filing and disposal of the aforesaid appeal, direct that 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 13/07/2026 at 15:49:16
no coercive steps, including recovery proceedings under Form DRC- 07A or otherwise, shall be taken against the Petitioner; e) In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the Order-in- Original dated 29.05.2023 and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after affording the Petitioner a full and effective opportunity of hearing in accordance with law;”
In paragraph 19 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner asserts that he is desirous of availing the statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 29.05.2023. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said order was never validly served upon him and was allegedly sent at an incorrect/old address. It is, therefore, submitted that the period of limitation for filing the appeal ought to be computed from the date on which the order was first communicated to, or came to the knowledge of, the Petitioner.
In substance, the Petitioner seeks a pre-emptive direction from this Court that the proposed Appeal be entertained without being rejected on the ground of limitation. Such a direction is not found appropriate. The Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the statutory remedy of Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, which shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law and thereon be disposed of by passing a speaking order.
In view of the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 9, 2026 s.godara/ad 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 13/07/2026 at 15:49:16
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.