A company named M/s Arjun Engineering Co. submitted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the Delhi High Court, against the Additional Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, North Delhi. On November 22, 2025, the case was determined. The hearing was accomplished in hybrid mode, i.e., both online and offline.
The taxpayer, via petition, contested an order dated August 28, 2025, in which the appeal of the taxpayer was dismissed as it was barred by delay. The taxpayer has been issued with an order-in-original dated August 07, 2023, raising a demand of Rs. 3.30 Lakh (IGST Rs. 199,894 + CGST Rs. 65,405 + SGST Rs. 65,405).
The above-mentioned demands were charged on the taxpayer for the specific short payments and differences in ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, as also differences in the tax liabilities stated in GSTR-I and GSTR-3B, along with interest. Such demands were contested on October 22, 2024, via filing an appeal. Through the impugned order dated August 28, 2025, the decision on the appeal was made.
As per the taxpayer, it has an issue concerning the notice dated August 20, 2025, which specified the date for the personal hearing on August 21, 2025. Likewise, the next notice was issued dated September 02, 2025, and the date for the personal hearing was decided on September 03, 2025.
The taxpayer’s authorised representative stated that there are two reasons for the non-appearance of the taxpayer regarding the personal hearing. One is that they were just given one day’s notice for the personal hearing, and the second is that the documents were filed via the lawyer of the taxpayer, who fell ill, so the appeal could not be prepared on time. Towards the same cause, they had prayed for the condonation of delay, but their request was cancelled.
Read Also: ITC Claimed as Per GSTR 2A Vs 3B: Madras HC Orders Dept. to Dispose Petition Within 30 Days
According to HC, the appellate authority could not condone delay under the law. But in this case, the provisions for natural justice were breached as the personal hearing notice was short and there were genuine reasons behind the delay. Hence, the HC condones the delay as per the condition that the company deposits Rs 20,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association within two weeks.
The appeal after making the payment should be heard again on the merits, and the authorities should provide the company at least one week’s notice before the hearing. The earlier order is set aside, which rejects the appeal for delay. The appeal shall now be heard. The case was disposed of.
| Case Title | M/s Arjun Engineering Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of GST |
| Case No. | W.P.(C) 17680/2025 & CM APPL. 73047/2025 |
| Counsel for Petitioner | Mr Pranay Jain |
| Counsel for Respondent | Mr Akash Verma, Ms Aanchal Uppal |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
