Vyome Therapeutics Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST (East) Delhi & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction over Vyome Therapeutics Limited’s challenge to an adjudication order dated 28.03.2026 on the ground that the applicable starting point for the five-year limitation under Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 was itself debatable. The petitioner contended that, since the case concerned an erroneous refund, the latter limb of Section 74(10) applied and the order was required to be passed within five years from the date of the erroneous refund. Revenue submitted that the alleged erroneous refund came to light during an audit under Section 65 and that the first limb of Section 74(10) applied, requiring limitation to be computed from the due date for furnishing the annual return for FY 2019-20, which had ultimately been extended to 31.03.2021. The High Court held that Section 74(10) provides different starting points depending upon the nature of the demand and that determining the applicable limb in the present case would require examination of the nature of the demand, underlying proceedings and factual foundation of the adjudication. Since an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was admittedly available, the Court declined to determine the limitation dispute in writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. It further observed that if the petitioner sought exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period during which the writ petition remained pending, the appellate authority should consider such application pragmatically. Thus, the High Court did not decide which limb of Section 74(10) actually governed the case or whether the adjudication order was barred by limitation. The writ petition and pending application were disposed of.
