Delay and laches defeated the writ challenge to GST proceedings despite the plea of non-service of notices.

A writ challenge to GST demand proceedings was declined where the petitioner alleged non-service of notices but made self-contradictory admissions, including that it had not filed a reply, had not sought a personal hearing, had learnt of the proceedings in 2024, and still approached the court only in November 2025 without a satisfactory explanation. The availability of an unavailed statutory appeal further weighed against interference. Applying the settled rule that writ jurisdiction must be invoked within a reasonable time and that delay, laches and acquiescence can defeat discretionary relief, the challenge was rejected as barred by delay and laches.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand and order was liable to be entertained despite the plea of non-service of notices, and whether the challenge was barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The petitioner asserted violation of natural justice on the ground that the notices and order were uploaded on the portal and were not physically served. The Court found the pleadings self-contradictory, since the petitioner also admitted that it had not filed a reply, had not sought personal hearing, had become aware of the proceedings in 2024, and still approached the Court only in November 2025 without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The availability of an unavailed statutory appeal was also noted. Applying the settled principle that writ jurisdiction must be invoked within a reasonable time and that delay, laches, and acquiescence can defeat discretionary relief, the Court declined interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be barred by delay and laches, and the challenge to the impugned GST proceedings was rejected.

---