‘Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt’: Orissa HC Declines to Entertain Writ Filed against GST S. 73 Order after 11 Months without Explanation [Read Order]

The Orissa High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an order under Section 73 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, 2017 noting that the petitioner approached the Court after an inordinate delay of nearly 11 months without offering any plausible explanation.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said that “The maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt” which means that the law assists those who are vigilant with their rights and not those that sleep thereupon is very seemly applicable to the case of the petitioner as the impugned order has been assailed in the writ petition after a gap of around 11 months since it is made.”

“This Court is conscious that no time limit is prescribed to approach writ Court, yet the petitioner is required to ascribe reason explaining the inordinate delay in filing application to invoke the writ jurisdiction,” added the bench in its order.

The petitioner, Abhinandan Sahoo had challenged an order dated 21 August 2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, raising a plea that the adjudication was barred by limitation despite extension notifications issued under Section 168A. However, the Court noted that the writ petition was filed only on 8 July 2025, nearly a year later, without disclosing any reasons for the delay.

Referring to the petitioner’s own admission in the writ petition regarding clerical mistakes in reporting exempt supplies as taxable supplies in GSTR-1, the Court held that such factual controversies required adjudication before the statutory appellate forum, and not under writ jurisdiction.

The Bench followed its own precedents including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, where the Supreme Court held that “the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily assist the tardy and indolent or the acquiescent and lethargic,” and on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply v. T.T. Murali Babu, 2014,, which cautioned that delay reflects “inaction and procrastination- the greatest thief of time.”

Further, the Court stated the settled principle in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, 2014 that when a statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked unless there is a breach of natural justice or total lack of jurisdiction.

While concluding its order, the High Court said that the petitioner’s case was barred by the principles of delay and laches. According to the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023, the Bench observed that the issues raised in the writ petition, if so advised, may appropriately be pursued before the competent statutory authority empowered to adjudicate factual disputes under the GST Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Accordingly, the writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates