Jahangeer Khan vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned adjudication order. The Court noted the petitioner's inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, which occurred long after the expiry of the appeal period, and the absence of cogent reasons for this delay. However, in exceptional circumstances, considering the substantiality of the tax amount and for the interest of justice, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits, provided the petitioner paid a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the authority within ten days and submitted proof of payment. Upon compliance, the appellate authority was to dispose of the appeal on merit without raising the issue of limitation. Furthermore, if the petitioner made the pre-deposit and paid the cost, the attachment of the bank account would remain stayed until the disposal of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Jahangeer Khan, filed a writ petition on July 25, 2023, challenging an order in original dated December 14, 2021. This was approximately one year and seven months after the expiry of the time limit for filing an appeal. The petitioner did not provide any valid reasons for this significant delay in approaching the High Court. The impugned order was an adjudication order passed by the CGST authority. The tax amount in dispute was stated to be not substantial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned adjudication order? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted relief despite the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the expiry of the statutory period for appeal? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner sought to challenge the order in original dated December 14, 2021. The specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the case or the impugned order are not recorded in the judgment. The primary focus of the petitioner's approach appears to be seeking relief from the High Court. Revenue's contentions: The CGST authority, represented by Mr. Tapan Bhanja and Mr. K. K. Maiti, argued that the impugned adjudication order is appellable under the statute, implying the availability of an alternative remedy. They did not explicitly argue against the merits of the petitioner's case but highlighted the procedural delay and the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism.