Telangana High Court
Dilip Super Market, vs Superintendent Of Central Tax on 3 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.9847 of 2025
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri Praveen K Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for CBIC, for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This writ petition assails the Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2023.
4. The present writ petition is filed on 28.03.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Form GST DRC-
07 dated 16.05.2024 is an unsigned document.
6. On a specific query from the Bench regarding the delay in
assailing the order dated 22.12.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn our attention only to paragraph No.6 of the writ affidavit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not explained the delay in
assailing the order dated 22.12.2023 after considerable long time. The
petitioner had a remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated
22.12.2023 within a period of ninety days. The Apex Court in
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Limited 1 in paragraph No.19 opined as
under:-
"19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics
Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 21 :
(2018) 361 ELT 22] , which had adopted the view taken by the Full
Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India [Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 570 : AIR 2015 Guj 97] and also of
the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE [Phoenix
Plasts Co. v. CCE, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10432 : (2013) 298 ELT
481] . The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious
premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that
provision such as Section 31 of the 2005 Act, cannot curtail the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking
away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the
assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period
of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ
petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or
passed in excess of jurisdiction -- by overstepping or crossing the
limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and
rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice,
where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to
such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the
ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be
invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner
chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the
maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under
Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard
the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and
entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of
course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle
underlying the dictum of a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in ONGC [ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd.,
(2017) 5 SCC 42 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 47] In other words, the
fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that
it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the
legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly
prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would
(2020) 19 SCC 681
render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated
provision otiose."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioner
could have filed the writ petition within the statutory period of
limitation for filing the petition. The petition is filed with sufficient
amount of delay and without there being any explanation for delay. For
this reason alone, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
8. The admission is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
03.04.2025
sa/vs
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
03.04.2025
sa/vs
