Delay and laches can defeat a GST writ challenge when the petitioner fails to pursue the statutory appeal diligently.

A writ challenge to dismissal of a GST statutory appeal was rejected for delay and laches where the petitioner had received notice, sought adjournment, and then failed to pursue the matter diligently for years. The Court treated the long, unexplained inactivity as decisive, noting that the later communication merely confirmed that the appeal had already been dismissed in March 2020. The suspension of limitation during the COVID period did not excuse the petitioner's lack of follow-up after limitation resumed. The challenge was therefore found not maintainable, and the petitioner's negligence in pursuing the remedy was held fatal to relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging dismissal of the GST appeal was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The petition questioned an order dismissing the statutory appeal under the GST regime, but the challenge was brought after a long lapse of time. The Court noted that the petitioner had received notice in the appellate proceedings, had sought adjournment, and thereafter did not diligently follow up the matter even after the suspension of limitation during the COVID period came to an end. The subsequent communication in 2024 only informed the petitioner that the appeal had already been dismissed in March 2020, yet the petitioner had remained inactive for years. In these circumstances, the Court found the delay unexplained and the conduct lacking due diligence.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on account of delay and laches and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the GST appellate order failed because the petitioner did not act with reasonable diligence and approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to a statutory tax order may be declined where the petitioner remains negligent in pursuing the remedy and the delay is not satisfactorily explained, even if limitation was suspended for a part of the period.

---