M/S Krishi Vistar Kendra vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Krishi Vistar Kendra, a sole proprietorship engaged in agricultural product wholesale and retail, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner was issued a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 on April 29, 2024, for discrepancies in its Financial Year 2019-20 return. Subsequently, on May 30, 2024, a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued proposing a GST demand of Rs. 33,96,162/- along with interest and penalty for April 2019 to March 2020. An order confirming a demand of Rs. 64,94,320/- was passed on August 28, 2024. The petitioner's bank account was attached on January 21, 2025. A rectification application filed on March 2, 2025, was rejected on October 7, 2025. The writ petition was filed on February 27, 2026.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition primarily on the grounds of delay and laches. The Court noted that the order-in-original was passed on August 28, 2024. The petitioner filed a rectification application on March 2, 2025, which was rejected on October 7, 2025. The writ petition was filed on February 27, 2026. The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the order-in-original on August 28, 2024, but did not take steps to avail the remedy of appeal. According to Section 107 of the CGST Act, an appeal can be preferred within three months. The petition was filed after the expiry of this prescribed limitation period. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot ordinarily be invoked to circumvent a statutory scheme and revive a remedy that has become barred by limitation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court held that if a writ petitioner approaches the High Court after the expiry of the maximum limitation period for filing an appeal, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period and entertain the writ petition as a matter of course. Entertaining such a petition would defeat legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 3 are violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches, given the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, violating the doctrine of audi alteram partem and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. It was contended that merely providing an opportunity to file a reply does not substitute a mandatory personal hearing. The petitioner also argued that the rectification order was non-speaking, vague, and cryptic, and that no other efficacious alternative remedy was available. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. They contended that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within the three-month period (plus a one-month condonable period). The respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, asserting that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent statutory limitation periods.