Shakti Infra Ventures(INDIA) Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shakti Infra Ventures (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated December 21, 2020, and the subsequent Order-in-Original dated December 30, 2021. These were issued for the tax periods 2014-15 and 2015-16, with the demand being dropped. The petitioner also sought to quash the garnishee notice dated November 8, 2024, and to direct the release of their attached bank account. The respondents are the Union of India, the Commissioner of Central Tax, the Superintendent of Central Tax, and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The writ petition was filed on February 9, 2026.

Held

The Court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable on the grounds of delay. Citing the ratio in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU., Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court found no inclination to entertain the petition due to the significant delay in filing. The judgment notes that even with the exclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic period as per the Apex Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, any appeal against the Order-in-Original could have been filed within 90 days of the expiry of the period from February 28, 2022. However, the writ petition was filed on February 9, 2026, long after this period. The Court did not delve into the merits of the Show Cause Notice or the Order-in-Original, as the primary reason for dismissal was the delay. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was dismissed on a preliminary ground.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable on grounds of delay, considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU., Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed after receiving a garnishee notice, implying a need for immediate intervention. They sought to quash the Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, and to unfreeze their bank account. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India and Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not present arguments on the merits of the case as the Court focused on the preliminary issue of delay. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the original demand or the subsequent dropping of it.