2026 (3) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DRC-07 dated 07.04.2022. The impugned order concerns the period April 2020 to March 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by order dated 29.05.2022, the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled. The same was restored only on 04.07.2023. Therefore, during the period 29.05.2022 and 04.07.2023, the petitioner was precluded from appealing the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not instituting an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of three months, extendable by one month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 was in violation of the principles of natural justice because....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to us to indicate that the petitioner's appeal would not have been entertained because registration was cancelled by order dated 29.05.2022. Admittedly, the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 relates to the period April 2020 to March 2021, during which the petitioner had a registration. 11. Thirdly, this petition was instituted only on 26.07.2023. Surely, the cancellation of registration did not preclude the petitioner from instituting a petition before this Court well within the limitation period prescribed under the statute for instituting appeals. Though no limitation period as such is prescribed for invoking this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, still, it is expected that the petitioner inst....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ually efficacious remedy. Therefore, where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another Tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by the statute, the high court normally will not permit, by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the machinery created by the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 15. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain (supra), 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, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1506, has held that if a pet....