M/S Jagdish Raj Parihar vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it suffered from delay and latches. The primary reasoning was that the petitioner had been negligent in pursuing their appeal. Although the petitioner received a hearing notice for their appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and subsequently faced delays due to postal issues and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court found that the petitioner failed to take adequate steps to follow up on their appeal after the Supreme Court's stay on limitation ended on 28.02.2022. The Court noted that the petitioner only inquired about the status of their appeal in 2024, which was a considerable period after the expiry of the stay. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot rely solely on pandemic-related extensions if they exhibit continued negligence in pursuing their legal remedies after such extensions cease. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jagdish Raj Parihar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.03.2020 passed by respondent No.3, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The petition was filed with a significant delay of 5 years. The petitioner explained that they received the hearing notice for their appeal, dated 31.01.2020, belatedly on 01.02.2020, after the scheduled hearing date. They requested an adjournment and to be informed via email, but received no response. The COVID-19 pandemic then ensued, with the Supreme Court extending limitation periods. After the pandemic, the petitioner attempted to ascertain the status of their appeal, eventually receiving information on 25.07.2024 that it had been dismissed on 11.03.2020. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the dismissal order on 23.09.2024 and then filed the present writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the significant delay and the petitioner's alleged negligence in pursuing their appeal, as per Section 112 of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was attributable to a series of unfortunate events, including postal delays in receiving the hearing notice, lack of response from the respondent authorities, the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, and the extension of limitation periods by the Supreme Court. They argued that upon receiving the dismissal order on 23.09.2024, they filed the writ petition within the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 112 of the GST Act, 2017. They relied on the Supreme Court's suo motu cognizance regarding limitation extensions during the pandemic. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing their appeal. They pointed out that the petitioner received a hearing notice, and even though the date had passed, they should have taken steps to follow up on their appeal. The respondents highlighted that the Supreme Court's stay on limitation ended on 28.02.2022, and the petitioner failed to take any steps thereafter to ascertain the status of their appeal until 2024, demonstrating delay and latches.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed this present petition challenging the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure P/12), whereby the appeal under Section 107 of the provisions of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the GST Act, 2017) has been dismissed. There is a 05-year delay in filing this present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has explained the delay in para-4 of the writ petition. Para-4 is reproduced below:- That after being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by respondent No.4 the present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 before 1 WP-5836-202
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.