2026 (4) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Respondent nos. 4 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 16.01.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 and quash the same as being as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires (Exhibit "A1" and "A2"); (c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders and direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity be thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the (i) Order-in-Appeal No. JC/APP-IV/Appeal Rejection/M/s Saifee Hospital Trust/2024-25/B-1303 dated 23.10.2024 passed by Respondent no. 3; (ii) Order in Original No. DCST-E-646/LTU-547/GST Audit (2018-19)/Saifee Hospital Trust/2024-25/B-452 dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 4 (Exhibit A4 and A5) and Notice dated 20.03.2025 issued in Form DRC-13 by Respondent no. 4 to Respondent no. 7.e. HDFC Bank (Exhibit A6); (d) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents their subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aw. 3. The facts pertaining to the present petition lie in a narrow compass. Form ADT-01 was issued to the Petitioner for conducting an audit for the financial year 2018-19. In response thereto, from 22nd November 2023, the Petitioner submitted the required information and details, including soft copies in a pen drive, as and when called upon to do so. 4. On 24th November 2023, an Audit Observation Report was issued to the Petitioner raising a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 5,54,73,892/- along with interest of Rs. 5,66,01,608/-. By communications dated 11th December 2023 and 13th December 2023, the Petitioner denied all the allegations and submitted further details in a pen drive. 5. On 20th December 2023, an intimation in Form DRC-01A came to be issued to the Petitioner under Section 73(5) of the MGST Act read with Rule 142(1A) of the MGST Rules, inter alia calling upon the Petitioner to pay GST of Rs. 5,53,52,067/- along with interest of Rs. 5,73,23,512/- and a penalty of Rs. 55,42,088/-. It is the Petitioner's contention that they did not receive and/or notice the aforesaid intimation and were therefore unable to respond to the same. 6. On 28th December 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts that the Petitioner has filed the present Petition, contending that the action on the part of the Respondent- Department is arbitrary and illegal. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Prakash Shah, along with Mr. Mihir Mehta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader, along with Mr. Himanshu Takke, Assistant Government Pleader, appeared for the Respondent-Department. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, with their assistance, perused the papers and proceedings. We now proceed to decide the present Petition. 14. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the present Petition can be conveniently disposed of if the relief as prayed for in prayer clause (e) is granted to the Petitioner. By the said prayer, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the Order-in-Original dated 25th April 2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 23rd October 2024 passed by Respondent No. 3, and further seeks restoration of Appeal No. AD270824032385Y filed by the Petitioner on 27th August 2024 to the file of Respondent No. 3 for being decided on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so Making a justi....