A taxpayer cannot overlook an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, just because a copy of the order was allegedly illegible, the Delhi High Court stated.
Hence, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain denied condoning the delay of the taxpayer in submitting the appeal against a GST demand order, on the basis that the order supplied to them was not unreadable.
“The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order-in-Original dated 04th February, 2025 is not a legible order. If so, the Petitioner had a duty to approach the Department and obtain a legible order, if the Petitioner cannot completely ignore the fact that it had received a copy and had not filed an appeal challenging the same.”
The Court was considering a petition filed by M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited, which specialises in the export of ready-made garments.
The applicant claimed a refund of the IGST to the tune of Rs. 78,29,825 concerning the export made against six shipping bills.
The department rejected the claim, quoting the demand raised against the applicant for the alleged bogus claim of the ITC.
Therefore, the applicant asked to contest the demand order, which was passed dated 4th February, 2025.
Under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, three months is the statutory period for filing a plea. It can be extended by 1 month.
Hence, the limitation to contest the demand order had lapsed on 4th June, 2025.
The applicant asked for condonation of the delay based on the fact that the copy of the demand order that was uploaded on the GST portal is not clear and unreadable.
However, the High Court noted that as a matter of law, a delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot be condoned.
Reliance was placed on M/s Addichem Speciality LLP Vs. Special Commissioner I, Department of Trade and Taxes and Anr. (2024), where a coordinate bench of the High Court had said that the provision does not imply aspects like ‘sufficient cause’ or other similar factors which may have stayed and led to further condonation of delay.
| Case Title | M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited vs UOI |
| Case No. | W.P.(C) 15509/2025 |
| For Petitioner | Mr. Ritaj Kacker Mr. Deepansh Dhanija Ms. Divya Rastogi, Adv. |
| For Respondent | Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, SSC with Ms. Upasana Vashishtha, Adv |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
