HC Permits Time-Barred Appeal, Citing Denial of Hearing and Natural Justice Violation.

Issue

Can a taxpayer, who was denied a personal hearing before the passing of an adverse Order-in-Original and subsequently missed the statutory appeal deadline, be granted an opportunity by a High Court in a writ petition to file the appeal beyond the limitation period?

Facts

The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth approximately ₹11.19 crores.
The petitioner had already deposited ₹3.94 crores with the department during the proceedings.
The adjudicating authority denied the petitioner’s request for an adjournment and passed an adverse Order-in-Original on February 4, 2025, without granting a personal hearing.
The order was allegedly uploaded to the GST portal in an illegible, compressed format, making it difficult to download and read.
The petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 within the prescribed time limit.
Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking relief against the order on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

Decision

The High Court, while noting that the limitation period for an appeal had expired, exercised its writ jurisdiction to provide a remedy due to the clear violation of natural justice.
It disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107, despite the delay.
The court set a new deadline, directing that the appeal must be filed by November 30, 2025.
It was explicitly ordered that if the appeal is filed within this extended timeframe, it must be adjudicated on its merits and not be dismissed as time-barred.
The court further directed that the ₹3.94 crores already deposited by the petitioner be adjusted towards the mandatory statutory pre-deposit required for the appeal.
The tax authorities were instructed to provide a clear, legible copy of the original order to the petitioner within one week.

Key Takeaways

Natural Justice is Paramount: A violation of the principles of natural justice, such as denying a personal hearing, is a strong ground for a High Court to intervene in its writ jurisdiction.
Writ Court Can Revive Remedies: Even if a statutory remedy like an appeal becomes time-barred, a High Court can use its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to create a pathway for the taxpayer to access that remedy, ensuring justice is served.
Balancing Act: The court balanced the need for adherence to statutory timelines with the imperative of providing a fair hearing. It did not quash the order but revived the taxpayer’s right to challenge it on merits.
Practical and Equitable Relief: The court provided practical relief by ordering the supply of a clear order copy and allowing the adjustment of the amount already paid towards the pre-deposit, demonstrating a holistic and equitable approach.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Acme India

Union of India, Department of Revenue

PRATHIBA M. SINGH and SHAIL JAIN, JJ.

W.P.(C) No. 15204 of 2025

OCTOBER 6, 2025

Kunwar Gangesh Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner. Harpreet Singh, SSC, Ms. Suhani Mathur, Jai Ahuja, Sanidhya Sharma, Akshay Saxena, Ms. Tripti Sinha, Ram Singh, Ms. Shivali Saxena, Advs. and Rajkumar Yadav, SPC for the Respondent.

ORDER

Prathiba M. Singh, J.- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 4th February, 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi West Commissionerate (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).

3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had sought an adjournment before the Adjudicating Authority, which was not granted and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

4. The impugned order arises out of the Show Cause Notice dated 26th July, 2024, issued under section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) (hereinafter, ‘SCN’).

5. The allegations in the SCN are that the GST Department had received information that one Shri. Krishan Pal Singh, alias K.P. Singh, had issued invoices without any supply from certain fake firms. Various other persons were found to be assisting him in raising such invoices.

6. The two firms involved, namely M/s Acme India and M/s Vibgyor Services, were the end-users of the fake firms operated by Shri Krishan Pal Singh and his accomplices. It was found that ineligible Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) had been availed. The entire operation was allegedly being controlled by one Shri. Chander Prakash Pabreja.

7. The Petitioner in this case, M/s Acme India, is stated to have availed ineligible ITC amounting to Rs.11,18,77,922 /-, out of which a deposit of Rs. 3,94,33,040/- has already been made. The firm M/s Vibgyor Services is stated to have availed ITC amounting to Rs. 8,09,33,534/-, out of which a deposit of Rs. 3,12,27,737 /- is stated to have already been made.

8. The demand raised against the Petitioner, for the various financial years is as under:

Financial Year	Tax demand	Penalty	Total
April 2020 to March 2021	Rs. 1,16,30,720.00	Rs.1,16,30,720.00	Rs.2,32,61,440.00
April 2019 to	0	Rs. 1,70,27,536.00	Rs. 1,70,27,536.00
March 2020
April 2018 to March 2019	Rs. 2,72,80,706.00	Rs. 2,72,80,706.00	Rs. 5,45,61,412.00

9. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the impugned order was uploaded on the GST portal, in an illegible and compressed format, and remains unavailable for download in proper form.

10. It is further submitted on behalf of ld. Counsel for Petitioner that no hearing was granted to the Petitioner and three summary orders of the same date i.e., 4th February, 2025 have been passed, raising demands of different amounts, and for different financial years. It is further submitted that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

11. Heard. The Court notices that the impugned order which was passed in February, 2025 was not followed by any subsequent communication by the Petitioner. No request was made for a clear copy of the order. The Petitioner was all along aware of the proceedings against it.

12. Notably, the limitation period for filing of the appeal has expired. However, the fact remains that certain adjournments were sought by the Petitioner, which appeared to have not been acceded by the GST Department, leading to the impugned order without hearing this Petitioner. This Court is therefore inclined to permit the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedy in accordance with law under Section 107 of the CGST, Act.

13. The amount deposited made by the Petitioner to the tune of ₹3,94,33,040/- shall be duly adjusted towards the pre-deposit required to be made for filing the appeal.

14. Let the appeal challenging the Impugned Order, be filed by 30^th November, 2025,

15. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner within the stipulated time, it shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be treated as barred by limitation.

16. Let the clear copy of the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025 be supplied by Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. SCC for the Respondent, to the Petitioner, within a period of one week.

17. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.