M/S Impressions Hr Services Private Limited And Anr vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Sealdah Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Impressions HR Services Private Limited & Anr., challenged an order dated December 12, 2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Sealdah & Ors., under the GST Act. This order was an appealable adjudication order. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on January 14, 2022, more than two years after the adjudication order, instead of filing an appeal. The petitioner claimed the delay was due to the pandemic and that the alternative remedy had become time-barred. The Court noted that the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and unsupported by material documents, and that the writ court cannot extend statutory periods of limitation. The petitioner is a company with access to legal services.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, which the petitioner failed to pursue within the prescribed time. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be unsatisfactory and lacking material support. It emphasized that writ jurisdiction, while not having a fixed period of limitation, cannot be used to circumvent statutory remedies or to grant relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, particularly when the petitioner is a company capable of availing legal recourse. The Court reasoned that allowing such a petition would undermine the statutory framework and the principles of limitation. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has become time-barred due to the petitioner's own delay. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they could not avail the alternative remedy of appeal because it became time-barred before the pandemic. They approached the writ court after a two-year delay, explaining the cause in paragraph 39 of the petition, which they believed was sufficient. Revenue/State's argument: The State argued that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and unsupported by material documents. They further contended that the writ court cannot extend statutory periods of limitation, and while there is no specific limitation for writ jurisdiction, it cannot be invoked at any time at the petitioner's will, especially given the petitioner is a company with legal resources.
Sections Cited
GST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. p.b. Sl. No.
W.P.A. 716 of 2022 (Through Video Conference) M/s. Impressions HR Services Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Sealdah & Ors. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmik, Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee. ……..for the petitioners. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh. ……..for the State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12th December, 2019 passed by the respondent adjudicating authority under GST Act which is an appeallable order and instead of filing the appeal against the said adjudication order dated 12th December, 2019, petitioner has filed this instant writ petition on 14th January, 2022 i.e. after two years of the said adjudication order. Petitioner submits that he could not avail the alternative remedy because it had become time barred before the pandemic and not only that petitioner has approached this writ court after expiry of two years from the date of adjudication order and he submits that he has 2 explained the cause of delay in paragraph 39 of the writ petition which is not satisfactory and not supported by any material documents and furthermore, the writ court cannot extend the statutory period of limitation. Though there is no period of limitation specifying for invoking constitutional writ juri iction, but it does not mean that anyone can invoke the constitutional writ juri iction at any time he wishes. Moreso, it is not a case that the petitioner is a lay person of a remote village or financially not in a position to bear the cost of litigation. Here petitioner is a company and it must have been availing legal services for its company. In view of discussions made above, this writ petition being WPA No.716 of 2022 is dismissed. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.