Telangana High Court
M/S 41 Internet Private Limited vs Union Of India on 24 November, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35435 of 2025
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr.Mohan Rao Ballani, the party-in person and
Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Bhujanga
Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent
No.1 and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for CBIC, for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
2. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to challenge
the Order- in-Original dated 28.03.2023 issued by the 2nd
respondent. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that the
writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The list of dates given
by the petitioner along with the writ petition itself is a self
explanatory. The impugned Order-in-Original is one which was
passed on 28.3.2023, which the petitioner himself accepts in the
writ petition to have received on 03.05.2023. The petitioner
thereafter appears to have approached the Writ Court by filing a
writ petition (SR) No.29833 of 2023 was not registered, but at the
SR stage itself, the same was withdrawn for the reasons best
known to him. After the withdrawal of the aforesaid writ petition,
he preferred a rectification petition before the authorities which
have got rejected on 20.02.2024. The petitioner thereafter
approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional bench at Hyderabad vide Appeal
Diary No.307392024. The said appeal got dismissed on 27.08.2024
on the ground of default in not making the Pre-deposit of 7.5%,
which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of law.
The petitioner again does not avail any legal recourse against the
said rejection of appeal. After some time, he again approaches the
authority by way of another rectification petition on 22.11.2024.
The said rectification also stood rejected on 29.01.2025 with liberty
to file newly constituted appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner again
preferred WP.No.7881 of 2025 before this Court, which he
withdrew on 24.04.2025. The petitioner waits for another six
months and filed the present writ petition on 13.11.2025.
Meanwhile, from the pleadings itself it appears that the petitioner
had lodged complaints against the officers of the Department with
allegations of demand of bribe and other similar allegations. The
petitioner's case also travelled to the CBI as also to the Lokpal of
India and they had also conducted enquiry and found that
allegations leveled by the petitioner, so far as bribe is concerned,
all were found to be false and baseless and the proceedings along
with complaint that the petitioner had filed before the Lokpal were
closed there itself.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition taking into
consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCT v.
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., 1, wherein, in
para Nos.18 and 19, it is held as under:
" 18. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that
what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High
Court can take a different approach in the matter in reference to
Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying the rejection
of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the
exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
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
(2020) 19 Supreme Court Cases 681
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
render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated
provision otiose.
4. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we
find that the writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable and
suffers from delay and laches as well. Moreover, the petitioner has
not taken any steps at the appropriate time to assail the order
passed by CESTAT on 27.08.2024, wherein, his appeal was
rejected in default for non-payment of Pre-deposit required.
For both the grounds, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
24.11.2025
Nvl/bj
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35435 of 2025
24.11.2025
Nvl/bj
