The Delhi High Court has held that a short delay in filing a statutory appeal should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds where the appellant has already explained the reasons for the delay in the substantive appeal. 

Setting aside an order of the Appellate Authority, the bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain condoned a 19-day delay in filing the appeal and observed that the Appellate Authority had adopted a “myopic view” while dealing with the 19-day delay.

The case arose after the petitioner/assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 19 days. The petitioner had explained the circumstances responsible for the delay in the annexure accompanying the appeal.

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

However, the Appellate Authority declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a separate application seeking condonation of delay.

The High Court found this approach unduly technical, particularly because the reasons for the delay had already been placed before the Appellate Authority along with the appeal itself.

The Court noted that the petitioner was a State Government undertaking and had specifically explained the circumstances behind the delayed filing. According to the order, the petitioner attributed the delay to shortage of funds, financial difficulties and losses.
The Court therefore found that the substantive requirement of explaining the delay had effectively been met, even though the petitioner had not filed a separate formal application for condonation.

While reaching its conclusion, the Delhi High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagmal & Others v. Kunwar Lal & Others, reported at (2010) 12 SCC 159.

The Supreme Court had held that where the substantive application itself contains the necessary explanation for the delay, insisting upon a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may amount to adopting a hypertechnical approach.

Applying this principle, the Delhi High Court held that the mere absence of a separately titled condonation application could not justify shutting the door on an appeal when the reasons for the delay were already available on record.

The Court particularly took note of the fact that the delay was only 19 days. The petitioner had not remained silent about the delay but had disclosed the circumstances that prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

The Bench concluded that the approach of the Appellate Authority could not be sustained. It consequently set aside the impugned order dated February 27, 2025 and formally condoned the 19-day delay.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Deputy Commissioner Competent to Issue GST Penalty Notice U/s 122: Allahabad High Court