M/S Arjun Engineering Co. vs. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER i. I confirm the demand of Rs. 3,30,704/- (IGST Rs. 1,99,894/- + CGST Rs. 65,405/- + SGST Rs.65,405/- ) as mentioned in para 13.3 above and held it recoverable from them under Section 73 of the Act; ii. I confirm the demand of IGST amounting to Rs. W.P.(C) 17680/2025
41,663/ and held it recoverable from them under Section 73 of the Act; iii.I confirm the demand of interest amounting to Rs. 64,692/- (Rs. 10414/-+ Rs. 54,278/-) as mentioned in para-15 & para 16 and held it recoverable from them under Section 50 of the Act; iv. I confirm the demand of interest, on applicable rate, under Section 50 of CGST Act, 2017, till the date of payment of the amount as confirmed under Sr. no. 20(i) && 20(ii) above; v. I impose Penalty of Rs. 33,070/- & Rs. 10,000/- on the amount, as confirmed at Sr. uo. 20(i) & 20(ii) above respectively, under Section 73 read with Section 122 (2)(a) of CGST/ SGST Act. 2017.”
The ground on which demand has been raised qua the Petitioner is in respect of certain short payments and difference in Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) claimed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A as also difference in tax liability reported in GSTR-I and GSTR-3B along with interest. This Order-in-Original was challenged on 22nd October, 2024 by way of an appeal which was decided by the impugned order which is under challenge.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the notice of personal hearing was issued on 20th August, 2025 giving date of hearing on 21st August, 2025 Thereafter, the impugned order was passed within a week on 18th August 2025. Similarly, notice was again issued on 2nd September, 2025 with the date of personal hearing fixed on 3rd September, 2025. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner could not appear as there was only a notice period of one day for appearance. The reasons given for praying condonation of delay is that the documents were submitted by the Petitioner to the Counsel who, thereafter, fell ill and could W.P.(C) 17680/2025
not file the appeal. The Appellate Authority has, however, rejected the prayer for condonation of delay.
The Court has considered the matter. There was no doubt that there was an application for condonation of delay which reads as under: “It is requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned on the ground that our advocate to whom we had handed over the documents fell sick and due to the same he could not prepare the appeal on time. We seek liberty to produce the medical documents at the time of personal hearing. Kindly give us this liberty and | shall be deeply grateful.”
In terms of the decision in W.P.(C)14279/2024 titled M/s Addichem of principles of natural justice due to one day’s notice which was given and considering the reasons for condonation, the Court is inclined to condone the delay subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- being deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association within a period of two weeks. The details of the said association is given below: Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association ● Name: Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association ● Bank: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court. ● A/c No.: 15530100006282 ● IFSC Code: UCBA0001553
Subject to the said deposit, the appeal of the Petitioner shall be heard on merits. The impugned order dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay stands set aside. W.P.(C) 17680/2025
The appeal shall proceed in accordance with law after giving a proper hearing of at least a week’s notice to the Petitioner.
The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE
SAURABH BANERJEE JUDGE NOVEMBER 20, 2025 dj/ck
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.