Two GST Number Allotment Not Justifies 4 Year Delay: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging ₹1.49 Cr GST Demand [Read Order]
The court observed that even if the allotment of two GST numbers was accepted, it took place in the year 2017, and the Petitioner ought to have sought the cancellation of one GST number.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand of ₹1,49,67,207 imposed on the Petitioner and held that the petition was barred by laches due to a four-year delay in challenging the order.
Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal (Petitioner) filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged an impugned order dated August 27, 2021. The Petitioner, who is registered with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department bearing GSTIN 07AAFL3353P2Z1, received the impugned order following a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated February 6, 2021, to which a reply was filed on March 4, 2021.
The Petitioner, Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, was represented by Dr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Mr. Maneesh Jain, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Deora, and Mr. Vikrant Chauhan, Advocates. The Respondents, Commissioner of GST and Anr, were represented by Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Advocate.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted the more than four-year delay was due to the Department which allotted two separate GST numbers to the Petitioner in 2017. The two GST numbers were 07AAAFL3353P1Z2 (allotted on July 5, 2017) and 07AAAFL3353P2Z1 (allotted on July 8, 2017).
The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain, observed that even if the allotment of two GST numbers was accepted, it took place in the year 2017, and the Petitioner ought to have sought the cancellation of one GST number.
The Court noted that the Petitioner had filed a reply to the SCN on March 4, 2021, and the impugned order was passed in 2021.
The Court observed “In any event, in the SCN, the Petitioner had filed a reply dated 4th March, 2021 and the impugned order was passed in the year 2021. There can be no justification for not challenging the said order for a period of four years.”
The Court held that the petition was barred by laches and was dismissed. The Court, however, granted the Petitioner the liberty to avail any other remedies that may be available. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
