Dream Aakar Construction Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not entertainable due to the petitioner's indolent approach and inordinate delay. The petitioner failed to submit a reply to the show cause notice, did not file a revocation application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, and did not avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The writ petition was filed after an unexplainable delay of almost two years from the date of the impugned order. The Court relied on its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs State of Bihar & Ors.) and Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., which emphasize that writ petitions should not be entertained when statutory forums exist or when filed beyond statutory periods, except in exceptional circumstances not present here. The Court found no occasion to enter into the merit of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Dream Aakar Construction Private Limited, a company engaged in construction, had its GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent of State Tax on 12.06.2023. The cancellation occurred due to the petitioner's failure to file returns for six consecutive months. A show cause notice was issued on the common portal on 08.05.2023. The petitioner claims their accountant failed to inform them, leading to a non-response. The impugned order was passed ex-parte. The petitioner filed a writ application seeking to quash the cancellation order and revoke the cancellation of its registration. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to avail the remedies of revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act and appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and that the writ petition was filed with a significant delay of over two years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the petitioner's failure to avail statutory remedies of revocation and appeal, and the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition? 2. Whether the cancellation of registration without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that their accountant's failure to inform them led to the non-filing of the reply to the show cause notice. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner had a right for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act and an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which they failed to avail. They further contended that the writ application was filed with a gross delay of over two years and should be dismissed.