Gajendra Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Gajendra Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Ambika Industries, filed two writ petitions before the Chhattisgarh High Court. WPT No. 59 of 2026 challenged an order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur, under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, imposing a demand of Rs. 7,10,397/-. WPT No. 60 of 2026 challenged a similar order dated 22.12.2023, imposing a demand of Rs. 31,81,567/-. The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, rendering them invalid. The State contended that the petitioner approached the High Court after significant delays of approximately five years and three years, respectively, from the dates of the impugned orders, and the explanation for the delay was insufficient.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the inordinate delay in filing them. The impugned orders were passed on 21.12.2021 and 22.12.2023, and the petitions were filed on 01.04.2026. The Court noted that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is 3 months plus an additional month for condonation, totaling 4 months. The petitioner approached the Court after several years, far exceeding this statutory period. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court emphasized that High Courts cannot disregard statutory periods for redressal of grievances and entertain writ petitions as a matter of course after the expiry of the limitation period. Such an approach would be contrary to legislative intent. Therefore, no case was made out for interference, and both writ petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are maintainable given the significant delay in approaching the High Court, particularly in light of the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner were bad in law as they were issued without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The delay was attributed to the Chartered Accountant not communicating the orders to the petitioner. Revenue's contention: The petitioner has approached the Court after a considerable delay (approximately 5 years and 3 years) from the dates of the impugned orders. The explanation for the delay is not tenable, and the petitioner has not properly explained the delay. The Court should not disregard the statutory period for redressal of grievances.