TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner - M/s Moms Cradle Private Limited (hereinafter "Petitioner Company") has filed W.P.(C) 12251/2025 challenging the impugned order dated 25th February, 2025 passed under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereinafter "the Act"), whereby the refund which was granted in favour of the Petitioner Company has been withheld by the GST Department. 4. W.P.(C) 15509/2025 has been preferred by the Petitioner Company seeking a prayer for permitting the Petitioner Company to file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 4th February, 2025. 5. The brief facts leading to these petitions are that the Petitioner Company, which is a company engaged in the export of readymade garments, was registered under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said writ petition, vide order dated 13th August, 2025, notice was issued and on 19th August, 2025, Mr. Sinha, ld. SSC had made a submission that the refund is being withheld in view of an order passed raising a demand qua fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter "ITC"). 9. The writ petition being W.P.(C) 15509/2025 has now been filed praying for permission to file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 4th February, 2025 raising the aforesaid demand for fraudulent availment of ITC. The prayer is made on the ground that the Petitioner Company's director was severely unwell and due to a lapse the said Order-in-Original could not be verified. It is also submitted that the copy of the Order-in-Original that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. The said order was not challenged by the Petitioner within the statutory period of three months, extendable by another month by the Appellate Authority, in terms of Section 107 of the Act. 12. As per Mr. Kacker, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Company, the said Order-in-Original did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner and hence, the prayer is for permitting the Petitioner to file the appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The further prayer is that, some part of the refund, which is to be granted, may be adjusted qua the pre-deposit for filing of the appeal. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha, ld. SSC objects to the entertaining of this writ petition. He submits that the refund, though being processed, now no longer deserves to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Act or the State Goods and Services 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 said decision or order is communicated to such person. [...] (4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month." 16. This provision has already been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 14279/2024 titled "M/s Addichem Speciality LLP Vs. Special C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other provisions concerned with condonation contained in the Limitation Act. It is this facet which triggers Section 29 of the Limitation Act and results in the exclusion of the other provisions governing condonation contained in that statute. [...] 69. In summary, the power to condone delay caused in 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....