Movers International Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in Movers International Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors., condoned a 16-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, ruling that the appellant’s bona fide act of awaiting a rectification order constituted a sufficient cause for the minor delay. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority on June 5, 2025, which had refused to condone the 16-day delay in challenging the original Order-in-Original dated August 29, 2024. The Appellate Authority’s rejection was based on the view that the pendency of a rectification application filed by the petitioner was not adequate proof of “sufficient cause” as required under Section 107(4) for extending the three-month appeal period by one month.
The High Court observed that the 16-day delay fell well within the one-month condonable period provided by Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. Critically, the court disagreed with the Appellate Authority’s outright rejection of the rectification application’s pendency as a sufficient cause. It held that the petitioner’s decision to await a ruling on the rectification request was a bona fide reason for the minor lapse in filing the appeal. The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to ensure that the statutory right of appeal was not unjustly denied on a technicality. The judgment referenced similar decisions by other High Courts, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaik Abdul Azeez v. State Of Andhra Pradesh and the Calcutta High Court in Kajal Dutta v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., where courts condoned delays—even those exceeding the statutory condonable period—when a sufficient cause, such as sickness or a genuine inability, was demonstrated. These precedents highlight the judicial intent to ensure appeals are heard on their merits where the delay is not deliberate.
