Central Goods And Service Tax ... vs Shri Prashant Agarwal Liquidator & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1858 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order is not modified by a later order that merely corrects the appearance of counsel, limitation for an appeal against the earlier order runs from the day after that order is pronounced, and not from the date of the later order. The Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is limited by the proviso to Section 61(2) to fifteen days beyond the prescribed period, and a delay exceeding that condonable period cannot be condoned, so that the delay condonation application must be rejected and the appeal consequently rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Bhilwara ...Appellant
Versus
Prashant Agarwal, Liquidator & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Prakul Khurana, Mr. Gourav Asati, Mr. Yash Tandon, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Advocate for R-2&3.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.03.2025: I.A. No. 6828 of 2024: This is an application praying for
condonation of 23 days' delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was
passed on 23.04.2024 and this appeal has been e-filed on 15.06.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the order was
subsequently modified on 03.05.2024, hence, limitation for filing the appeal
shall commence only from 03.05.2024 and there is delay of only 12 days' in
filing the appeal which is within the condonable period.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the submission of learned
counsel for the Appellant and has also filed reply contending that limitation
shall commence on the date when order was pronounced i.e. 23.04.2024 and
limitation shall not be arrested till 03.05.2024, as contended by learned
counsel for the Appellant.
Cont'd.../ 2
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Order dated 03.05.2025, on which reliance has been placed by learned
counsel for the Appellant is order correcting appearance of the counsel. The
said order in no manner modifies earlier order dated 23.04.2024 and
therefore, when the order was pronounced i.e. 23.04.2024, the limitation shall
commence from the following day. Hence, this appeal has been filed with 23
days after expiry of the limitation. We are of the view that submission of the
Appellant that limitation shall commence from 03.05.2024 cannot be
accepted.
5. Our jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to 15 days as per Section
61(2) proviso. The delay being beyond condonable period, cannot be
condoned. Hence, Delay Condonation Application is rejected. In result, Memo
of Appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1858 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free