Delhi High Court
M/S White Mountain Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner, Cgst ... on 23 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 2752/2024 & CM APPL. 11183-84/2024
M/S WHITE MOUNTAIN TRADING PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
CGST APPEALS-II, DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner Mr. Srijan Sinha and Mr. Naveen Soni, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.
Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-II whereby the appeal filed by
the petitioner impugning the order in original dated 04.05.2023 was
dismissed holding that the same is barred by limitation.
2. Issue notice. Notice accepted by learned counsel for respondent.
With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today.
3. As per the impugned order, the order in original is dated
04.05.2023 and the last date for filing the appeal in terms of Section
107 (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) being 3 months, was 03.08.2023. The
impugned order records that the appeal was actually filed on
25.09.2023 after a delay of more than one month. As per the
Commissioner Appeals only a delay upto one month, in filing an
appeal, could be condoned under Section 107 (4) of the Act if
sufficient cause in shown.
4. Commissioner Appeals held that since the appeal was filed with
a delay of more than one month, Commissioner Appeals was not
vested with the power to Condon the delay.
5. It is pointed out that the petitioner had filed the appeal through
an online process on 02.09.2023. The date noticed in the impugned
order, i.e. 25.09.2023 is the date when the petitioner physically filed
the appeal after the filing done on 02.09.2023 through the online
process.
6. It is not in dispute that the appeal is to be filed through an
online process and thereafter the physical copy is to be supplied to the
department.
7. The date of filing is always taken as the date of initial filing
through the online mode if other steps as required in the law are also
taken by the appellant.
8. Since in the present case the appeal was filed on 02.09.2023,
we hold that the appeal was filed with a delay not exceeding one
month and as such the Commissioner Appeals was empowered to
consider the application seeking condonation of delay.
9. As the Commissioner Appeals has erroneously not considered
the application seeking condonation of delay solely on the ground that
appeal same was beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 (4)
of the Act and thus beyond the powers vested in the Commissioner
Appeals, we set aside the said order and remit the matter to the
Commissioner Appeals to consider the application seeking
condonation of delay in accordance with law.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
11. The Commissioner Appeals shall expeditiously dispose of the
proceedings.
12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented on the merits or the contention of either party or the
merits of the application seeking condonation of delay.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2024/ss
