M/S Manimala International vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground of laches and delay. It clarified that the petitioner's reliance on M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer – cum – Assessing Authority was misplaced, as that judgment did not establish a three-year limitation period for filing writ petitions. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K.Zalpuri and Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, emphasizing that while no fixed period of limitation exists for writ petitions, they must be filed within a reasonable time. The petitioner's failure to explain the inordinate delay of approximately one year in approaching the court after the impugned order was passed was deemed a sufficient ground for dismissal. Regarding the violation of natural justice, the Court noted that the petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause notice, thus, no violation occurred. The suspension of registration during cancellation proceedings was deemed not to require a prior opportunity of hearing. The contention that the order was not signed was rejected as the order was digitally signed. The argument regarding retrospective effect was not considered due to the dismissal on grounds of laches.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manimala International, challenged an order dated 24.04.2023 cancelling its GST registration. The petitioner argued that the order violated natural justice, had retrospective effect, and was not issued in the proper GST Form, nor signed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner's registration was suspended on 01.04.2023 without a hearing. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, contended that the petitioner approached the court after approximately one year, did not file a response to the show cause notice, and the order was digitally signed. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court case of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer – cum – Assessing Authority to argue for a three-year limitation period for writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is barred by laches and delay, considering the impugned order was passed on 24.04.2023 and the petition was filed approximately one year later, and if so, whether the petitioner's reliance on M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer – cum – Assessing Authority for a three-year limitation period is applicable to writ petitions. (Article 226 of the Constitution of India). 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the cancellation of GST registration without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing. 3. Whether the suspension of GST registration on 01.04.2023 without a prior opportunity of hearing is legally sustainable. 4. Whether the impugned order of cancellation is invalid due to not being issued in the proper GST Form or not being signed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). Petitioner's Arguments: The impugned order violates natural justice, has retrospective effect, and was not issued in the proper form or signed by the competent authority. The suspension of registration was also done without a hearing. The petitioner argued for a three-year limitation period for writ petitions based on the Apex Court's decision in M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Respondent's Arguments: The petitioner approached the court after about one year, failed to file a response to the show cause notice, and the order was digitally signed. The respondent implicitly argued that the delay and laches should lead to dismissal.