Phelan Energy INDIA Private Limited vs. Commissioner Of CGST Delhi Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, PHELAN ENERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, is aggrieved by an order dated December 31, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner. This order dismissed the petitioner's statutory appeal due to the failure to formally seek condonation of delay. The petitioner contends that the appeal would have fallen within the larger period of limitation prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The sole issue was whether the appeal could be dismissed for not filing a formal application for condonation of delay, despite providing an explanation during the hearing. The respondents are the Commissioner of CGST Delhi and others.
Held
The Court held that the order of the Joint Commissioner dismissing the statutory appeal was unsustainable. The Court found that the appeal would have fallen within the larger period of limitation as constructed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court reiterated its previous stance in Urbkra Bearing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Others, observing that the appellate authority had taken an extremely narrow and pedantic view. The condonable period of an additional 30 days, as provided by the statute, was clearly applicable and could have been invoked to entertain the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored the petitioner's appeal to the board of the appellate authority for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the statutory appeal, which would otherwise fall within the larger period of limitation under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the appellant had not filed a formal application for condonation of delay, despite offering an explanation during the hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal should not have been dismissed for want of a formal condonation application, especially when the appeal falls within the extended limitation period provided by Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and an explanation for the delay was provided. They relied on the principle that a narrow and pedantic view should not be taken when the condonable period is applicable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in opposition to the petitioner's plea.
Sections Cited
Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31 December 2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner in terms of which the statutory appeal has come to be dismissed consequent to a failure on the part of the petitioner to formally seek condonation of delay.
We find that undisputedly the appeal would fall within the larger period of limitation which stands constructed in terms of Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘CGST Act’]. The only issue which thus survives is whether despite the explanation which was proffered in the course of hearing of the appeal, the same was liable to be dismissed solely on the ground 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 01/07/2025 at 20:12:51 Services Tax and Others [W.P.(C) 8878/2024 decided on 30 January 2025] observed as follows: - “3. The Additional Commissioner, however, has alluded to the fact that all orders are communicated electronically on the AIO portal and thus, it would be deemed to have been served on 22 February 2023 itself. The appellate authority, however, has taken the view that the period of limitation would have to be computed from that date and viewed in that light, the appeal would have fallen within the prescribed limitation of 90 days and thus liable to be filed upto 21 May 2023. 4. Insofar as the additional period of one month which the statute provides for the preferment of an appeal is concerned, the Additional Commissioner has merely observed that since no formal application for condonation had been moved, the prayer for condonation, was not liable to be countenanced.
In our considered opinion the Additional Commissioner has clearly taken an extremely narrow and pedantic view since the condonable period of an additional 30 days was one which was clearly applicable and could have been invoked for the purposes of entertaining the appeal and trying the challenge on merits
.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the Order-in-Appeal of the Additional Commissioner dated 29 December 2023. The appeal shall consequently be accepted as having been filed within the time prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Act.
The appeal as preferred by the writ petitioner shall consequently stand revived on the board of the appellate authority to be heard on merits and decided afresh in accordance with law.”
Consequently, and for all the aforesaid reasons, we find ourselves unable to sustain the order impugned.
We, consequently, allow the instant writ petition and quash the order dated 31 December 2024. The appeal of the writ petitioner shall consequently stand restored on the board of the appellate authority to 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 01/07/2025 at 20:12:51
be decided in accordance with law.
All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.
YASHWANT VARMA, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J FEBRUARY 11, 2025/RW 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 01/07/2025 at 20:12:51
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.