ADITYA MADAAN v. COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: 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 Operative disposition: In view thereof, the review petition is dismissed. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGE MAY 23, 2025
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 1 of 9 $~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 PetitionerAditya 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

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 2 of 9 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".

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 3 of 9 official documents/orders and as such bad in law. X X X (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.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 8 of 9 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.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

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

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 4 of 9 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.

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.

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 7 of 9 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-HCMUM- 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

Operative decision and relief

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.

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 6 of 9 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.

W.P.(C) 5650/2024 Page 9 of 9 15. In view thereof, the review petition is dismissed. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGE MAY 23, 2025 acm/rks

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with ADITYA MADAAN v. COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS. concerns issue and context: 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 operative disposition: in view thereof, the review petition is dismissed. prathiba m. singh judge dharmesh sharma judge may 23, 2025 The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 5650/2024.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: 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 Operative disposition: In view thereof, the review petition is dismissed. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGE MAY 23, 2025 Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107 and the decision date 2025-05-23; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is ADITYA MADAAN v. COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 5650/2024, and the decision is dated 2025-05-23. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 29(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Globe Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Director Vipin Mittal v. Commissioner of DGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Padam Kishore and Company through Proprietor Naveen Sachdeva v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY