M/S. Rahul Spares PVT LTD., Cuttack vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

1. Heard Mr.Tiberwal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CT & GST as well as Mr.Kedia, learned Jr.Standing Counsel for Opposite Party No.3. 2. The ex-parte order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Cuttack for the period 2017-18 under Section 73 of the OGST Act, 2017 together with Rule 142 of the OGST Rules is challenged in the instant writ petition on two counts; Firstly, that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided by the said authority; secondly, the order was not communicated to the Petitioner and therefore the challenge to the same before this Court could not be made within the reasonable time.

It is undeniable that the show-cause notice was issued upon the Petitioner, which was duly replied to and subsequently the authority having found the reply to be unsatisfactory passed the order. It is contended by the counsel for Department that, since the Petitioner himself has admitted that no personal hearing is required in that regard, the order of rejection cannot be impinged on such a score. Be that as it may, the submission advanced before us relates to passing of an ex-parte order as the knowledge have been imputed recently.

Section 146 of OGST Act, 2017 postulates that the Government on the recommendations of the Council may notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal to facilitate the registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and the settlement of the integrated tax and to carry out such other functions as may be prescribed. Thus, the creation of common portal as envisaged under Section 146 of the said Act, is to facilitate not only uploading of the returns or registration, but also the payment of tax including the adjudication made by the competent authority and uploading of the order which would be passed. The aforesaid notion can further be corroborated by Section 169 of said Act providing the mode of communication of any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under said Act. The language used in the section leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the modes contemplated therein for communication of the decision/order or the notice can be resorted to by the authorities.

It leads to another point pertaining to delay and latches attributable to the conduct of the Petitioner in approaching this Court. We are not unmindful of the proposition that there is no period of limitation provided under the Limitation Act in relation to an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court as well as several High Courts have imposed self-restraint upon themselves in exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the approach is made belatedly and bereft of any reasonable explanation. The delay and laches attributable to the conduct of the litigant may disentitle him to get the relief and the Court may at times refuse to exercise such discretion vested upon them.

The moment the order is uploaded in the common portal and the returns are statutorily required to be uploaded on such portal on periodical intervals, it is inconceivable that there was lack of knowledge of said order to the Petitioner. The order was passed as far back as in the year 2023 and the challenges made to the same in the instant writ petition, filed in the year 2025, is without any explanation except that said order was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the order was not communicated to him. There is apparent delay in approaching this Court and therefore, we refuse to exercise the discretion vested upon us under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ application is rejected. No order as to costs.