https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469562 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. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 18:50:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469562 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469562