Delhi High Court
Aditya Madaan vs Commissioner Cgst Gst Commissionerate ... on 23 May, 2025
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh, Dharmesh Sharma
$~3 (SDB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd May, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 5650/2024 & REVIEW PET. 166/2025
ADITYA MADAAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Babbar, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC with
Mr. Anand Pandey, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
REVIEW PET. 166/2025 in W.P.(C) 5650/2024
2. The present review petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-
Aditya Madaan seeking review of the judgment dated 7th February, 2025
(hereinafter, the 'judgment') passed in a batch of matters titled M/s
Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department of Trade
and Taxes Anr. (2025:DHC;737-DB).
3. Vide the said judgment, the Court inter alia decided the issue,
whether delay can be condoned in an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST
Act. On this issue, it was held that the delay is not condonable. The relevant
portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"69. In summary, the power to condone delay caused in
pursuing a statutory remedy would always be dependent upon
the statutory provision that governs. The right to seek
condonation of delay and invoke the discretionary power
inhering in an appellate authority would depend upon whether
the statute creates a special and independent regime with
respect to limitation or leaves an avenue open for the appellant
to invoke the general provisions of the Limitation Act to seek
condonation of delay. The facility to seek condonation can be
resorted provided the legislation does not construct an
independent regime with respect to an appeal being preferred.
Once it is found that the legislation incorporates a provision
which creates a special period of limitation and proscribes the
same being entertained after a terminal date, the general
provisions of the Limitation Act would cease to apply.
70. In view of the forgoing discussion, as it is evident that each
of the appeals was filed beyond the prescribed period of
limitation provided by Sections 107 (1) and 107 (4) of the CGST
Act, the aforesaid writ petitions lack merit and are accordingly
dismissed."
4. The submission of Mr. A.K. Babbar, ld. Counsel appearing for the
review applicant, who was the Petitioner in the matter, is that apart from the
issue of delay, there were various other grounds which were raised in the writ
petition. The same are as under:
"7. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
(A) There is digital signature appended to the Show Cause
Notice dated 03.02.2023 and order of Cancellation of RC
dated 18.04.2023 and response dated 31.03.2022 to
Petitioner application for Cancellation of RC which carries
a stamp "Signature Not Verified" and digitally signed by "DS
Goods and Services Tax Network 07". This makes the order
of cancellation a nullity as Goods and Services Tax Network
is not a proper officer and this order. Therefore, it has to be
treated as unsigned document and as such the SCN dated
03.02.2023 and impugned order dated 18.04.2023 are not
official documents/orders and as such bad in law.
XXX
(H)
The Ld. Appellate Authority had erred in law in dismissing
appeal on the reasoning appeal is time barred when no
signed order by Proper Officer had been issued and period
to file Appeal will run when copy of signed order is
delivered."
5. It is the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that in the
judgment, apart from the issue of delay no other contentions of the Petitioner
have been considered. His submission is that since the impugned order dated
18th April, 2023 was not properly signed, it was not an order in law and
therefore, the writ petition deserved to be allowed.
6. The brief background of this petition has been recorded in the judgment
in paragraph nos 22 to 26. All the grounds raised by the petitioner in the
petition have been enumerated in the said paragraphs. The relevant paragraphs
read as under:
"22. The petitioner submits that the SCN dated
03.02.2023, reflected the reason for cancellation of the
Registration Certificate, which reads as follows: -
"Failures to furnish returns for a continuous
period of six months" in facts and circumstances
is not an erroneous reason when six months
period has not exhausted."
23. The petitioner submits that this reason does not
suffice as he had applied for the cancellation of the
Registration Certificate on 09.03.2022.
24. It is further stated that the order dated 18.04.2023
directed the petitioner to pay "ZERO" (0) amount,
contradicting the SCN dated 03.02.2023, which alleged
failure to pay tax, interest, or penalty beyond six months
from the due date. The cancellation order dated
18.04.2023, based on the SCN dated 03.02.2023, is
illegal, arbitrary, and invalid, as the cited reason is
incorrect. The SCN was issued before the six-month
period had expired, and the petitioner had already
applied for cancellation, which was still pending.
Therefore, the order violates Section 29(2) of the CGST
Act, rendering it legally flawed.
25. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the Registration
Certificate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority on 18.10.2023, which was rejected
on 09.01.2024 for being time-barred.
26. The petitioner contends that the Registration
Certificate was suspended on the same day the Show
SCN dated 03.02.2023 was issued, and no order
revoking the suspension was passed within a reasonable
time. Instead, the impugned cancellation order was
arbitrarily issued after a prolonged period on
18.04.2023. The cancellation, citing non-filing of
returns for a continuous period of six months, lacks
statutory backing as it does not fall within the causes
outlined in Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Furthermore,
the retrospective cancellation of the RC, without prior
notice or explicit mention in the SCN, is unlawful and
exceeds the authority conferred by law. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of this Court in Aditya Polymers
vs. Commissioner, DGST13, which underscores the
illegality of retrospective cancellation without due
process. Accordingly, the impugned order should be
quashed as it violates principles of natural justice and
statutory provisions."
7. The background of this petition is that the Goods and Services Tax
('GST') registration was obtained by the petitioner on 17th July, 2017. The
Petitioner then applied for cancellation of the GST registration on 9th March,
2022. Almost one year later, a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, the 'Show
Cause Notice') was issued to the Petitioner on 3rd February, 2023 in Form
GST REG-17/31. As per the said notice, the Registration Certificate of the
Petitioner stood suspended from 3rd February, 2023 itself. The ground on
which the Show Cause Notice was issued was that the Return was not
furnished by the Petitioner. A hearing in the Show Cause Notice was fixed on
2nd March, 2023. However, no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice and
the said hearing also was not attended. Subsequently, on 18th April, 2023 the
Order-in-Original came to be passed by Mr. Gulshan Bhatia, Superintendent,
Ward 61. Below the said name, it is stated as under:
"
8. The order having been passed on 18th April, 2023, the same was
appealable by the Petitioner in terms of Section 107 of the CGST within a
period of 3+1 months i.e., 4 months from the date the order was
communicated to the person concerned. Thus, the limitation period for filing
the said appeal expired on 17th August, 2023. However, the appeal was filed
on 18th October, 2023, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the
ground that the same was barred by limitation.
9. Before this Court, in view of the absence of the GST Appellate
Tribunal, a writ petition being W.P.(C) 5650/2024 has been first preferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer in the writ
petition was for setting aside of the impugned order dated 9th January, 2024
passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-II, Delhi
along with the order dated 18th April, 2023.
10. The Court in the said writ petition, after recording the stand of the
Petitioner, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appeal could not
be entertained as it was barred by limitation. The Court held that the delay in
filing the appeal was not condonable.
11. When the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable, the arguments
raised by the Appellant i.e., the Petitioner herein, on merits in the said appeal,
was not required to be considered by the Court inasmuch as after deciding the
legal issue, the petition was dismissed.
12. Be that as it may, today even after seeing the order dated 18th April,
2023, it is clear that the authenticity, credibility and the legitimacy of the order
cannot be questioned as the name of the official, his designation, his ward
number, range number along with the digitally signed stamp is appearing
clearly in the said order. In the opinion of this Court, there may be some
technical glitch with the wording in the Stamp "Signature Not Verified" but
the same is digitally signed and the said expression would not render the order
void or non est as is being argued. The fact that the officer has digitally signed
the order and the order is uploaded on the GST portal renders the same as a
valid order.
13. In M/s Vishwa Enterprise v. State of Gujarat (2025:GUJHC:18982-
DB) wherein vide order dated 20th March 2025, on squarely similar facts, it
was argued that the copy of the impugned order therein ought to have been
signed by the concerned authority and the same not being signed, is invalid.
The Gujarat High Court while considering the facts and contentions inter alia
held that in view of the fact that the impugned order therein was uploaded on
the GSTN portal which can only be done after verification by the concerned
State Tax Officer, the said order is valid. The relevant portions of the oral
order is set out herein:
"4.2. It was therefore submitted that the
petitioner may be given an opportunity to
continue her business. In support of his
submissions, reliance was placed on the
following decisions raising the contention that
SCNs and the Orders are to be signed by the
Authority and that even if the SCNs and Orders
were uploaded on the portal, the digital signature
is required to be affixed:
(i) Railsys Engineers Pvt Ltd vs
Additional Commissioner of CGST
reported in 2022 (65) G.S.T.L. 159
(Del.);
(ii) Marg ERP Ltd vs Commissioner of
Delhi Goods and Services Tax reported
in (2023) 7 Centax 174 (Del.);
(iii) Ramani Suchit Malushte vs Union
of India reported in 2023-TIOL-81-HC-
MUM- GST;
(iv) Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs
ITO reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom
59;
(v) SRK Enterprises vs Assistant
Commissioner (ST) reported in (2023)
13 Centax 60 (A.P.).
4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Jeevan Vasave also
referred to and relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of M/s.
Fortune Service versus Union of India and
Others in Writ Petition No.20656 of 2024 and
other allied matters to submit that in the facts of
the said case the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held
that the copy of the order is required to be signed
by the respondent before uploading or serving
upon the petitioner. It was submitted that Hon'ble
the Kerala High Court has relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Talangana High Court in
case of Silver Oak Villas LLP Versus Assistant
Commissioner (ST), Begunpet Division
Hyderabad reported in (2024) 17 Centax 442
(Telangana) to quash and set aside the orders
which were not signed by the State Tax Officer.
4.4. It was therefore submitted that the impugned
order cancelling the registration is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
* * *
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the facts of
the case, it appears that the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner that the impugned notice
and the order are unsigned does not merit any
acceptance in view of the fact that the same were
uploaded on the GSTN portal which can be
done only after the verification by the concerned
State Tax Officer through its portal after
logging into the portal using the digital
signature."
14. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the review petition is unmerited, both
on the issue of lack of error apparent on the face of the record as also on
merits.
15. In view thereof, the review petition is dismissed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DHARMESH SHARMA
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2025
acm/rks
