TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MST-10 dated 27.01.2023 passed by the respondents. 2. Brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under Companies Act 2013 (for short '2013 Act') and registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act') and Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'HGST Act). It is engaged in business of construction and infrastructure development and is stated to be compliant with all statutory requirements under the GST regime, including filing of returns and payment of taxes. Petitioner availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the October 2017 and paid its output tax liability in the GST filing months of March 2018 and April 2018 against ITC taken in October 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her argued that proceedings are time barred and respondents have incorrectly invoked Section 74 of CGST Act which would be applicable only in case of fraud, wilful misstatement of suppression of facts. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents (on advance notice) has opposed the writ petition while submitting that petitioner itself has duly accepted that it was served with the notices in question. No reply etc., had ever been filed. Petitioner did not file any appeal challenging the said order dated 07.11.2023 but has suddenly chosen to file the present writ petition in November 2025. It is submitted that impugned order dated 07.11.2023 has been correctly passed. Dismissal of writ petition i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en below:" 8. No reply was filed by petitioner. Show cause notice GST DRC- 01 was then issued to petitioner on dated 09.08.2023, wherein it is stated that there is an element of wilful misstatement/suppression of facts on the part of the registered tax payer (petitioner) to which again petitioner did not respond. Impugned order dated 07.11.2023 was passed by Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Ward 4, Sonipat, while duly noting that petitioner did not file any reply nor appeared after receipt of ASMT 10 as well as show cause notice dated 09.08.2023 in Form DRC-01. Matter was accordingly decided ex-parte. 9. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that there is a blatant violation of principles of natural justice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....about the said notices and order in the year 2024 when a full-time accountant was appointed. 12. We take note of the fact that present writ petition has been filed in November 2025. Even if the stand taken by petitioner is to be believed, there is not a whisper in the writ petition as to what prevented it from taking necessary steps immediately on coming to know of the proceedings. Petitioner, admittedly, had the statutory remedy of appeal to challenge impugned order dated 07.11.2023 which was admittedly not availed of. Present writ petition has been filed after much delay for which there is no explanation leave alone a reasonable explanation. Doubtlessly, there is no limitation for filing a writ petition, but at the same time it is a se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bichitrananda Behera (supra). In the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 2510, Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and another, 1961 AIR Supreme Court 1506 as under :- "12. That apart, the majority view in a previous constitution Bench in A. V Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1506 reads thus: "14. ..., we must express our dissent from the reasoning by which the learned Judges of the High Court held that the writ petitioner was absolved from the normal obligation to exhaust his statutory rem....