M/S Sukhdev Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court held that it cannot, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alter the statutory scheme to permit the Petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy. The Petitioner was required to challenge the order of cancellation of CGST registration before the First Appellate Authority. By his own admission, the Petitioner allowed the maximum period of delay, which could be condoned by the First Appellate Authority, to lapse. Therefore, the Court found no basis to grant relief and dismissed the writ petition. The ratio is that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not permit a party to circumvent statutory remedies due to their own failure to adhere to prescribed timelines.
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Sukhdev Singh, is aggrieved by an order dated September 2, 2019, which cancelled his CGST registration. To seek revocation of this cancellation, the Petitioner was required to appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the Petitioner admits in his writ petition that the period for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority has lapsed. The Petitioner has approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the cancellation order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can permit the Petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal before the First Appellate Authority when the period for condoning delay has expired? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner sought relief from the High Court, implying a desire to have the cancellation order reviewed or revoked, despite missing the statutory appeal deadline. The Petitioner's action of filing a writ petition suggests an attempt to seek an alternative remedy when the statutory one was time-barred. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, Union of India and others, implicitly argued that the Petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory remedy available to him within the prescribed time limits. They would likely contend that the High Court should not interfere with the statutory scheme and the Petitioner's failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7th July, 2020 M/s Sukhdev Singh .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 & 2. Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
The Petitioner has presented the Court with a factual situation that makes it impossible for any relief to be granted.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd September, 2019 by which his CGST registration stands cancelled.
In order to seek revocation of such cancellation, the Petitioner was required to challenge the order dated 2nd September, 2019 before the First Appellate Authority. By his own admission in para 14 of the writ petition, the Petitioner appears to have missed the bus by allowing the maximum period of delay which could be condoned by the First Appellate Authority, to lapse. SATYAWAN 2020.07.07 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
This Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.