Indian Tours And Travels vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Indian Tours & Travels, filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original (No. 25/2022-ST) dated June 28, 2022, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax for the tax period October 2014 to March 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional provisions and the Finance Act, 1994. They also argued that they had already paid the taxes and the demand would amount to double taxation. The petitioner became aware of the impugned order only upon receiving a notice from the bank to attach their account. The respondents argued that the writ petition was filed after a delay of four years and should not be entertained.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of inordinate delay in filing. The Court found that the petitioner's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the proprietor's lack of education and reliance on others, was not sufficient, especially since the petitioner had participated in the proceedings by furnishing a reply. The Court relied on the ratio of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, holding that the writ petition was not fit to be entertained due to the significant delay. The Court noted that it was open to the petitioner to seek any statutory relief permissible under the Finance Act, 1994. No specific issue regarding double taxation or the merits of the Order in Original was decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, filed after a delay of approximately four years from the date of the impugned Order in Original, is maintainable? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the writ petition was adequately explained due to the proprietor's lack of education and reliance on an authorized representative. They also argued that they only became aware of the impugned order when their bank account was attached, and that the order itself leads to double taxation. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of four years and should be dismissed following the ratio laid down in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.