M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning And Oil Mill vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the significant delay in filing. The Petitioner admitted to receiving the impugned order on 23.02.2023 but filed the writ petition on 05.09.2023, which is over seven months later. The Court noted that the Petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Since the Petitioner neither availed the alternative statutory remedy promptly nor approached the writ court without undue delay, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at such a belated stage. The Court explicitly reserved the Petitioner's right to avail the remedy available under the statute. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and non-exhaustion of alternative remedies.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill, represented by its Partner P. Venkat Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition sought to challenge an order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Khammam GST Division. The Petitioner admitted to receiving a copy of the impugned order on 23.02.2023. The writ petition was filed on 05.09.2023, approximately seven months after the order was passed. The Petitioner sought to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the order as illegal and unauthorized, and to set it aside. The Petitioner also sought a stay on the collection of disputed CGST and TGST amounts, along with penalties and applicable interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the delay in filing and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy? (Question of law) The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and unauthorized. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Petitioner regarding the delay or the maintainability of the writ petition. The Petitioner's counsel was heard, but the specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text. The Respondents, represented by their respective counsel, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case concerning the illegality of the order. However, the Court's decision implies that the Respondents' position, or at least the Court's interpretation of the situation, led to the dismissal based on the Petitioner's delay and failure to exhaust statutory remedies.