P G Metal vs. The Additional Director General (Adg)

Facts

The petitioner, P.G. Metal, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 26.02.2025, passed by the third respondent, the State Tax Officer - 6 (Ins). The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a mandamus directing the first respondent, the Additional Director General (ADG), Directorate General of GST Intelligence, to conduct a fair investigation and submit records to the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner also prayed for the third respondent to refrain from imposing penalty, interest, and initiating recovery proceedings based on submitted documents and evidence. The writ petition was filed on 09.07.2026.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay. The judgment notes that the writ petition was filed on 09.07.2026, which is 'long after the expiry of the limitation.' The petitioner was questioned about their willingness to deposit any amount as a condition for de novo adjudication or filing an appeal, to which the petitioner's counsel stated they were not willing to deposit any amount. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court found the writ petition to be without merit due to the significant delay and the petitioner's unwillingness to comply with potential conditions for relief. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that it was filed significantly after the expiry of the limitation period, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief from penalty, interest, and recovery proceedings without depositing any amount, considering the delay in filing the petition. The petitioner argued for a fair investigation and quashing of the impugned order, implying that the order was passed without proper due process or consideration of their submitted evidence. The respondents, represented by the State counsel, did not explicitly record arguments but the Court's decision indicates a reliance on established legal principles regarding limitation and the requirement for deposit in such matters. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.