2026 (3) TMI 1052 - HC - GST

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 requires utmost expedition; unexplained delay and alternate remedy bar discretionary relief.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where an equally efficacious statutory appeal remedy existed and the petitioner delayed invoking it; the ... Validity of exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite delay and availability of alternate remedy - cancellation of GST registration - sufficient cause - delay in instituting statutory appeal - violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction where alternate statutory remedy exists - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain [2025 (11) TMI 1377 - SUPREME COURT], by referring to the majority view in a previous Constitution Bench in the case of A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani [1961 (4) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT], has held that if a petitioner has disabled himself from availing himself of the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the prescribed time, he cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the court dealing with his petition under Article 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour. In essence, the Court believed that once a petitioner has, due to his own fault, disabled himself from availing a statutory remedy, the discretionary remedy under Article 226 may not be available. The Court held that the petitioner did not show sufficient cause for not availing the statutory appeal remedy within the prescribed limitation. The adjudication order was dated 07.04.2022 and the petitioner's registration was cancelled on 29.05.2022 (w.e.f. 31.03.2022), but nothing prevented the petitioner from instituting an appeal between 07.04.2022 and 29.05.2022. The petitioner failed to establish that it was unaware of the impugned order or that cancellation of registration would have precluded prosecution of an appeal. Although writ jurisdiction under Article 226 has no fixed limitation, the Court must be invoked with utmost expedition and ordinarily will not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory remedy; where the petitioner by its own fault disabled itself from availing the statutory remedy, discretionary relief is generally unavailable. Applying these principles and the authorities cited, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to assist the petitioner in overcoming the statutory limitation. [Paras 10, 11, 15, 16, 17] Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay; High Court refused to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to bypass the statutory appeal remedy. Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioner did not establish that the adjudication was ex parte for lack of service or hearing. Show cause notices had been issued and opportunities were granted, but the petitioner did not avail them or put forward any merits or probable defence. The bare assertion of non-service was contradicted by the record and, in any event, where a party does not respond to show cause proceedings and opportunities afforded, the resulting order cannot be successfully impugned as ex parte. [Paras 4, 5, 12] Claim of breach of natural justice rejected; adjudication order was not set aside on that ground. Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed: the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause to bypass the alternate statutory appeal remedy and failed to establish a breach of natural justice in the adjudication, so the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. Issues: (i) Whether this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a belated challenge to the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 where an alternate statutory appeal remedy was available and the petitioner delayed institution of proceedings; (ii) Whether the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 was vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice because no notice of hearing was given.Issue (i): Whether to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction despite delay and availability of alternate remedy.Analysis: The Court examined the chronology showing the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022, the cancellation of GST registration effective 31.03.2022 and cancelled by order on 29.05.2022, and the restoration on 04.07.2023. The petition was filed on 26.07.2023. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court authorities establishing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, should be invoked with utmost expedition and ordinarily not exercised where an equally efficacious alternate statutory remedy exists; delay or self-induced inability to avail the statutory remedy ordinarily disentitles the petitioner to discretionary relief. The Court found no satisfactory explanation that registration cancellation prevented timely exercise of the statutory appeal remedy, and noted absence of substantive defence on merits.Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the belated challenge; the petition is dismissed on this ground.Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order is vitiated for want of notice/hearing (breach of natural justice).Analysis: The petitioner alleged the order was ex parte and not served. The record showed show cause notices were issued and opportunities afforded; no adequate explanation was given for failure to avail those opportunities, and no substantive merits or defence were presented to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged lack of notice.Conclusion: The claim of breach of principles of natural justice is rejected; no relief is granted on this ground.Final Conclusion: Considering the availability of alternate statutory remedies, the petitioner's delay and lack of adequate cause for non-availment of those remedies, and absence of a convincing natural justice violation or defence on merits, the writ petition is dismissed.Ratio Decidendi: Where an aggrieved party has an equally efficacious statutory appeal remedy and has not availed it within the prescribed period due to its own delay or fault, a High Court will ordinarily refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226; invocation of writ jurisdiction must be with utmost expedition and within a reasonable period determined by the facts.