Mr. Sk.Meerabasha vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on two primary grounds. Firstly, it is well-settled law that writ petitions are ordinarily not entertained when a statutory appeal is available and the time for filing such appeal has expired, rendering the order final. Secondly, the Court noted that the writ petition itself was filed belatedly, after more than one and a half years, without any reasonable explanation for the laches. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on these grounds. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the GST proceedings or the alleged violations of natural justice or constitutional provisions was decided, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Circle-III, Nellore, under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The impugned proceedings, dated January 11, 2022, and June 21, 2022, determined the petitioner's tax and interest liability and granted 90 days for payment, failing which recovery action would be initiated. Recovery proceedings were subsequently commenced. It was undisputed that the order was appealable, but no appeal was filed within the statutory period. The Government Pleader argued that the writ petition was filed after more than one and a half years without explanation for the laches.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal and the delay in filing the petition, in light of the principles of alternative remedy and laches? The petitioner sought to challenge the GST proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's argument, implied by the filing of the writ petition, is that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked due to the alleged illegality and violation of constitutional rights, overriding the procedural bar of delay and the availability of appeal. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable because the order under challenge was appealable, the statutory period for appeal had expired, and the writ petition was filed with significant delay and laches without any reasonable explanation.