In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court highlighted the importance of filing a petition under Article 226 within a reasonable time period. The court dismissed the petition filed against GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) after a 5 year delay.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “Although a period of limitation is not prescribed for the initiation of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is needless to say that the petitioner is required to approach the Court within a reasonable time.”
Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgments on GST with Free E-Book Access, Click here.
The case involved V.N.V. Builders Private Limited, the petitioner-GST registrant which contested a GST order dated January 9, 2019, related to the assessment period from July 2017 to December 2017.
The company argued that it had not been notified of the order through any means, including the GST portal. It was only after learning about the order from a garnishee that the petitioner requested a certified copy from the first respondent on May 15, 2024, and subsequently filed the writ petition.
Mr. Kanmani Annamalai, for M/s. K.V. Subramanian Associates, the petitioner’s counsel, claimed that the order was first received around January 25, 2024, and the writ petition was filed shortly after. They emphasised the urgency of the matter due to the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, which impacted their business operations.
Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgments on GST with Free E-Book Access, Click here.
Conversely, Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, pointed out that the petitioner had been notified of the order through a notice dated November 26, 2020. This notice referenced the DRC-7 issued on January 9, 2019, which indicated that the petitioner was aware of the order well before the writ petition was filed. Therefore, he argued that the petition should not be entertained due to the excessive delay.
The High Court concurred with the respondent’s counsel, observing that despite the notice issued in November 2020, the petitioner failed to act immediately. The delay in obtaining and challenging the order was deemed unreasonable. Considering that the order was from January 2019 and the writ petition was filed in May 2024, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief. Thus, it dismissed the petition without any order as to costs.
Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgments on GST with Free E-Book Access, Click here.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
