M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(4)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner- M/s Classic Construction Co. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 13th May, 2025 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Respondent No. 3-Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-I, Delhi. Operative disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 18,
• 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) 12366/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 12366/2025 M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma & Mr. Saket Jain, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with Ms. Shreya Lamba, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 50450/2025 ( for Exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 12366/2025 &CM APPL. 50449/2025 3. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner- M/s Classic Construction Co. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 13th May, 2025 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Respondent No. 3-Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-I, Delhi. 4. Further, vide the present petition, the Petitioner is assailing the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 on the ground that the same is ultra vires to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, the ‘CGST Act, 2017’).

W.P.(C) 12366/2025 Page 2 of 5 5. In the impugned order, the Respondent No. 3 authority rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner herein, assailing the Order-in-Original dated 30th April, 2024, on the ground that the same is time barred in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. 6. A brief background of the present case is that the Petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm, which is stated to be inter alia engaged in the trading business of ceramic products. In 2017, the Petitioner got itself registered under the CGST Act, 2017 and subsequently had a Goods and Services Tax Identification (‘GSTIN’) No. 07AIOPA9493M1ZI. However, on 18th January, 2023 a notice under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 raising various discrepancies in the returns of the Petitioner.

7. In the meantime, Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 th December, 2023 was issued, by which, the limitation for filing GST returns was extended, thereby extending the limitation for issuance of Show Cause Notices under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 as well. 8. On 29 th December, 2023, a further Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2. The said notice alleged excess availment of Input Tax Credit. A reply to the said notice was filed on 19th February, 2024 and the Order-in-Original was passed on 30 th April, 2024 which according to the Petitioner was uploaded and served only on 31 st May, 2024.

Vide the said Order-in-Original a demand to the tune of Rs. 44,10,806/- was confirmed qua the Petitioner. 9. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same on 8th November, 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 13th May, 2025, on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

W.P.(C) 12366/2025 Page 3 of 5 The operative portion of the said Order-in-Appeal is set out below: “5. I have carefully gone through all the documents available on record and various submissions made by the appellant . Firstly, I will examine whether the instant appeal has been filed within statutory period or not. I note that Sub Section (1) of Section 107 of CGST Act , 2017 prescribes the period of filing an appeal as under : "Section 107 (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Service Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the s aid decision or order is communicated to such person.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

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

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

5.1 I find that the instant appeal has been filed against Order-In-Original No. ZD0705240524500 dated 30.04.2024. Therefore, in terms of section 107(1), the last date of filing the instant appeal was 29.07.2024 whereas the same has been filed online on 08.11.2024 i.e., after a delay of more than three months from the last date of filing of instant appeal . 5.2 Here, I also find that the delay of one month in filing an appeal can be condoned under section 107(4) of CGST Act , 2017 , if sufficient cause is shown. In the instant case, I find that the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in the instant matter .

Furthermore , I find that the delay in filing the instant appeal is beyond one month for which I am not vested with the power to condone. Even if one month is condoned, the appeal will remain time-barred. 6. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the instant appeal filed by the appellant is hit by timelimitation as provided under the Act and therefore the same is liable to be rejected on this count alone without going into the merits of the case. ORDER

Operative decision and relief

W.P.(C) 12366/2025 Page 4 of 5 7. Considering the above discussion and findings , the impugned order i.e., Order -In-Original No. ZD0705240524500 dated 30.04.2024 is up held and the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected as discussed supra and disposed of in terms of Section 10 7(12) of CGST Act, 2017 .” 10. This Court has considered similar matters wherein the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 has been challenged, including in the decision in W.P.(C) 1613/2025 titled M/s Mohan International Through Its Karta Mohit Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, the Court held as under: 8. In the opinion of this Court, the appeal filed by the Petitioner u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 shall be heard on merits by the Appellate Authority and shall not be dismissed on limitation, so long as the appeal complies with the other conditions under Section 107 of the said Act including predeposit.

9. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, and the fact that the challenge to the impugned notification is pending before the Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to provide the Petitioner another opportunity to present its case on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 2nd December, 2024 is set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number. The appeal shall now be adjudicated on merits after affording a personal hearing to the Petitioner. A hearing notice of the Appeal shall be provided by the Appellate Authority on the following email address….” 11. Considering the fact that the challenge to the Notification No. 56/2023Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 is pending in the Supreme Court, the appeal of the Petitioner deserves to be heard on merits.

W.P.(C) 12366/2025 Page 5 of 5 be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 12. The hearing notice shall be given to the Petitioner on the following email address: pulkit@enurelegal.com 13. After hearing the matter, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed by the Appellate Authority. 14. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 18, 2025/Rahul/Rks

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner- m/s classic construction co. under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india inter alia challenging the order-in-appeal dated 13th may, 2025 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned order’) passed by the respondent no. 3-office of the commissioner of central tax appeals-i, delhi. operative disposition: petition is disposed of in these terms. all pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge august 18, 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) 12366/2025.

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: The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner- M/s Classic Construction Co. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 13th May, 2025 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Respondent No. 3-Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-I, Delhi. Operative disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 18, Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(4)—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 10; GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(4) and the decision date 2025-08-18; 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 M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 12366/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-08-18. 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 SHAIL JAIN. 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 10; GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(4). 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 10 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 61 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(4) — 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