Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Tribunal constituted under The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), which is now functioning. The Court acknowledged that such matters, including the question of condoning delays after the upper limit has lapsed, are being examined by the GST Tribunal. Therefore, the Petitioner, if advised, may avail the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the CGST Act. The Court did not decide on the merits of the delay condonation or the Petitioner's underlying GST dispute. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should direct parties to avail statutory remedies when such remedies are available and functional, especially when the appellate body is actively considering issues relevant to the petitioner's situation.

Facts

The Petitioner, Ritu Gautam, proprietor of MS Heritage International, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 24.07.2026. The Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was dismissed for refusal to condone the delay. The Petitioner's counsel stated that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The Court noted that the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), constituted under the CGST Act, is now functioning and is examining the issue of condoning delays even after the upper limit has lapsed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, given that the Tribunal is now functioning and examining issues of delay condonation beyond the statutory limit? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner's counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal while refusing to condone the delay. The Petitioner implicitly sought relief from the High Court due to this dismissal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Appeals II Delhi & Anr., did not explicitly argue on the merits of the delay condonation or the Petitioner's case. However, the Court's direction implies that the Revenue's position would be that the Petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy.