M/S Shiva Impex Through Kshitiz Gupta vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax Appeals-I, Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiva Impex, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-I, Delhi. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner had filed their appeal before the Appellate Authority on 08.04.2023. The Appellate Authority determined that the appeal was delayed by three days, with the time for filing expiring on 05.04.2024. The petitioner contended that the delay was only two days, which they considered insubstantial.

Held

The High Court held that the delay in filing the appeal was barely a few days and the explanation provided by the petitioner, that they became aware of the limitation period after consulting their legal advisor, could not be rejected as unsatisfactory. The Court noted that Section 107(4) of the CGST Act empowers the Appellate Authority to condone a delay not exceeding one month if sufficient cause is shown. Given the minimal delay and the stated reason, the Court found the Appellate Authority's rejection of the appeal as being barred by limitation to be erroneous. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Appellate Authority for a decision on its merits. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was barred by limitation under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)? The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was only two days and therefore insubstantial. They further contended that the delay was caused because they became aware of the period of limitation only after consulting their legal advisor, which should be considered a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The respondent, the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-I, Delhi, argued that the appeal was indeed barred by limitation as it was filed three days after the expiry of the prescribed period.