The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period prescribed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act for filing an appeal cannot be extended beyond the statutory limit, dismissing a plea seeking permission to file a delayed appeal against an order raising a tax demand for alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC).

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal must be filed within three months from the communication of the order, extendable by only one additional month if sufficient cause is shown. Beyond that, the court said, no authority — not even the High Court — has the power to condone further delay.

The bench reiterated that this strict limitation framework reflects legislative intent and excludes the general principles of condonation under the Limitation Act, 1963.

“As a matter of law, since the delay cannot be condoned, the petition would not be tenable,” the Court observed.

The petitioner-company, Moms Cradle engaged in garment exports sought to challenge a February 4, 2025 order issued by the GST authorities that raised a tax demand of ₹42.76 lakh for alleged fraudulent ITC claims. The company claimed it could not file a statutory appeal within the time limit because its director was unwell and the copy of the order uploaded on the GST portal was illegible.

The GST Department opposed this argument, submitting that the order had been duly emailed to the company’s registered address on February 5, 2025, and that its director had actively participated in the adjudication proceedings. The department argued that the plea was an attempt to mislead the Court by falsely claiming ignorance of the order.

The Court noted that the company had taken part in the adjudication proceedings and that its representative’s statement had been recorded by the department. It therefore found no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the issuance of the order.

“Once the order was communicated, the petitioner was obliged to file an appeal within the statutory period. Failure to do so cannot be excused on grounds of alleged lack of clarity or non-receipt,” the judgment stated.

In a related petition, the company had also challenged the withholding of an IGST refund amounting to ₹32.52 lakh. 

The Court directed that this refund be adjusted against the outstanding demand raised under the February 2025 order.

Case Details

Case Title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited  Versus UOI

Case No.: W.P.(C) 15509/2025

Date: 09/10/2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Ritaj Kacker, Mr. Deepansh Dhanija & Ms. Divya Rastogi

Counsel For Respondent: Ruchesh Sinha, SSC with Ms. Upasana Vashishtha

Read More: Delhi HC Warns Customs Dept. to Rigorously Enforce Minimum Import Price on Soda Ash