M/S 41 Internet Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner had multiple opportunities to challenge the orders, including filing and withdrawing writ petitions, and failing to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for an appeal before the CESTAT, which led to its dismissal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CCIT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., which emphasizes that High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions when statutory remedies are available and have not been properly availed, especially when there is a significant delay. The Court found that the petitioner's approach to the writ court was not at an appropriate time and that they had not taken steps to assail the CESTAT order promptly. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches, and the availability of alternative remedies that were not properly pursued.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s 4i Internet Private Limited, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2023, issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate. The petitioner received the order on 03.05.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition (SR) No. 29933 of 2023, which was withdrawn. A rectification petition was rejected on 20.02.2024. The petitioner then appealed to the CESTAT, which was dismissed on 27.09.2024 for non-payment of the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit. Another rectification petition was rejected on 29.01.2025. The petitioner filed WP No. 7891 of 2025, which was withdrawn on 24.04.2025. The present writ petition was filed on 13.11.2025. The petitioner had also made complaints against tax officers, which were found to be false by the CBI and Lokpal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the impugned order and subsequent orders? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the alternative remedies available, particularly the statutory appeal process, and if so, whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition at this stage? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to challenge the Order-in-Original as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to settled principles of law, and violative of natural justice. They prayed for the order to be set aside and for a de novo reconsideration after a personal hearing, adhering to CBIC Master Circular dated 10.05.2017. The petitioner also sought directions to furnish relied upon documents and investigation records. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, and the petitioner has not availed appropriate legal recourse at the correct times, including the dismissal of their appeal by CESTAT for non-payment of pre-deposit.