Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kumar Kataria vs Addl Commissioner Of Cgst & Anr. on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 3009/2024
PANKAJ KUMAR KATARIA ...... Petitioner
versus
ADDL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Mr. Dinesh Mohan
Sinha, Mr. Rajeev Arora, Mr. Shivnath & Mr.
Manish Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arnav Kumar, SSC with Mr. Aranya Sahay,
Mr Gurdas Khurana & Ms. Deepakshi Rathore,
Advocates for CGST.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns common order dated 23.08.2023 whereby three
appeals filed by the petitioner impugning orders in original, all dated
28.07.2022, have been rejected solely on the ground of limitation.
2. We notice that petitioner has filed one Writ Petition impugning an
order in appeal passed in three appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are same
and though three orders in original were passed, however order in appeal is
common in all the three appeals. He submits that on account of inadvertence
only one petition has been filed. He prays and is granted leave to challenge
all the three orders in appeal. We noticed that since the petition impugns
three orders in appeal, the petitioner is directed to file additional court fees
for the two additional challenges to be orders in appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced two e-court fees in
the sum of Rs 100/- each bearing id no. DLCT2942B2404L073 &
DLCT2910B2410K241.
5. The petitioner is directed to file e-court fees in the registry within
two days and the registry shall furnish the report to the Court Master for
filing of the Court fees.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was never
aware of the orders passed on 28.07.2022 and became aware of the orders
only on 28.08.2022, when the orders were uploaded on the online portal.
7. This is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent who submits
that the orders were uploaded immediately on 28.07.2022 when they were
passed, and as such the appeals were beyond time.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner submits that if the date of
uploading was to be taken as 28.08.2022, the appeals were within time.
However, even if the date of uploading was taken as 28.07.2022, the appeal
would be delayed by only 14 days and since the petitioner was under an
impression that the orders had been uploaded on 28.08.2022, no application
seeking condonation of delay was filed in the appeals. He submits that had
an objection being taken earlier, petitioner would have filed applications
seeking condonation of delay. He prays that an opportunity be granted to
the petitioner to file an application seeking condonation of delay before the
Appellate Authority.
9. Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances, all the three
orders in appeals dated 23.08.2023 are set aside. The appeals are restored
on the file of the Appellate Authority. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to
file an application seeking condonation of delay within a period of two
weeks from today. On such an application being filed, the Appellate
Authority shall consider the application seeking condonation of delay in
accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated in this
order.
10. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented
on the merits of the contentions of either parties or the sufficiency of reason
seeking condonation of delay.
11. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
sk
