TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23-Central Tax, dated 28th December, 2023 vide Annexure-7 by the Government of India in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extending the period of limitation to pass an order under Section 73 by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals that upon scrutiny of returns filed by the petitioner-assessee under Section 39 of the GST Act, a show cause notice in GST DRC-01 has come to be issued by the State Tax Officer on the allegation of excess input tax credit availed while filing Form GSTR-3B vis-à-vis available input tax credit in Form GSTR-2A. Having not responded to such show cause notice, the State Tax Officer-opposite party No. 2 invoked powers under Section 73 and passed order dated 17.08.2024. 2.1. Said order is under challenged in the present writ petition on the premise that the said adjudication order is hit by limitation contained under Section 73(10) of the GST Act, notwithstanding such statutory period has been extended from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 168A of the GST Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clear and loud illuminating facts so emanating from the record and non-response to the show cause notice does not persuade this Court to entertain this writ petition. The factual aspect is subject to scrutiny and appreciation of evidence by the fact-finding authorities empowered under the GST Act and Rules framed thereunder. 6.2. Further scrutiny of writ petition does not disclose any plausible reason, much less reason, to demonstrate the circumstances which prevented the petitioner from approaching this Court within reasonable period challenging the order under Section 73 of the GST Act. Whereas said order was framed on 17th August, 2024, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 28th July, 2025. 6.3. This Court is conscious that no time limit is prescribed to approach writ Court, yet the petitioner is required to ascribe reason explaining the inordinate delay in filing application to invoke the writ jurisdiction by-passing the alternative remedy available in the statute. 6.4. This Court, appreciating the objection against entertainment of writ petition as set forth by the learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Department that the petitioner should have filed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may only mention in the passing two decisions of this Court one in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 = AIR 1979 SC 1628 = (1979) 3 SCR 1014 and the other in Ashok Kumar Mishra Vrs. Collector, (1980) 1 SCC 180 = AIR 1980 SC 112 = (1980) 1 SCR 491. We may point out that in R.D. Shetty case, even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs 1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bar. Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold." 6.8. In Maharashtra SRTC Vrs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, AIR 1969 SC 329 it has been observed as follows: "11. *** It is well-established that the writ of certiorari will not be granted in a case where there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the adverse party. The principle is to a great extent, similar to though not identical with the exercise of discretion in the Court of Chancery. The principle has been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....run as follows: "Under the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and after admitting may be graciously pleased to:- a. Issue Rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties as to why Notification dt.31.03.2023 vide Annexure-4 and 28.12.2023 vide Annexure-5 extending the time limit to pass Order under Sub-Section 10 of Section 73 of the OGST/CGST Act, 2017 is in clear transgression power available U/s. 168 A r/w Section 73 (10) of the OGST/CGST Act, 2017, therefore the said impugned Notification are illegal, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. b. Issue Rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties as to why show cause notice dated 17.05.2024 and the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 issued by the opposite party No. 2 vide Annexure-1&2 shall not be quashed; c. If the opposite parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the rule absolute; d. To Issue necessary directions directing opposite parties to pass reasoned order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law taking into consideration the ....