9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1586 - HC - GSTChallenge to ex-parte order - no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided - order was not communicated to the Petitioner and therefore the challenge to the same before this Court could not be made within the reasonable time - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Section 146 of OGST Act 2017 postulates that the Government on the recommendations of the Council may notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal to facilitate the registration payment of tax furnishing of returns computation and the settlement of the integrated tax and to carry out such other functions as may be prescribed. Thus the creation of common portal as envisaged under Section 146 of the said Act is to facilitate not only uploading of the returns or registration but also the payment of tax including the adjudication made by the competent authority and uploading of the order which would be passed. The aforesaid notion can further be corroborated by Section 169 of said Act providing the mode of communication of any decision order summons notice or other communication under said Act. The language used in the section leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the modes contemplated therein for communication of the decision/order or the notice can be resorted to by the authorities. The Apex Court as well as several High Courts have imposed self-restraint upon themselves in exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution if the approach is made belatedly and bereft of any reasonable explanation. The delay and laches attributable to the conduct of the litigant may disentitle him to get the relief and the Court may at times refuse to exercise such discretion vested upon them - The moment the order is uploaded in the common portal and the returns are statutorily required to be uploaded on such portal on periodical intervals it is inconceivable that there was lack of knowledge of said order to the Petitioner. The order was passed as far back as in the year 2023 and the challenges made to the same in the instant writ petition filed in the year 2025 is without any explanation except that said order was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner. There is apparent delay in approaching this Court and therefore it is refused to exercise the discretion vested upon us under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ application is rejected.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of the ex-parte order and opportunity of hearing The Petitioner challenged the ex-parte order on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order under Section 73 of the OGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording a personal hearing, which is a fundamental procedural safeguard. The Department countered by stating that the Petitioner himself admitted that no personal hearing was required, and hence the ex-parte order could not be faulted on the ground of denial of hearing. The Court noted that a show-cause notice was issued and replied to by the Petitioner, but the reply was found unsatisfactory by the authority. The Court, however, focused on the procedural aspect that the order was passed ex-parte, implying the Petitioner had no knowledge of the order at the time it was passed. The Court did not elaborate on the necessity of personal hearing in this context but rather concentrated on the communication of the order and the Petitioner's knowledge thereof, which is addressed under the next issue. Issue 2: Communication of the order to the Petitioner The Court examined the statutory framework governing communication of orders under the OGST Act, 2017. Section 146 of the OGST Act mandates the Government to notify a Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal to facilitate various functions including registration, payment, return filing, and adjudication. Section 169 of the OGST Act prescribes the modes of communication of decisions, orders, summons, notices, or other communications, allowing authorities to use any one of the specified methods. The Court emphasized that the phrase "any one of the following method" should be interpreted pragmatically, meaning that compliance with any one of the prescribed modes suffices for valid communication. One such mode explicitly contemplated is making the order available on the common portal. The Court found that the order in question was uploaded on the common portal, which is a valid mode of communication under Section 169. The Court rejected the Petitioner's contention that the order was not communicated, holding that since the order was uploaded on the portal, and given the statutory requirement for the Petitioner to upload returns periodically on the same portal, it is inconceivable that the Petitioner was unaware of the order. Issue 3: Delay and laches in filing the writ petition The order was passed in 2023, but the writ petition was filed only in 2025. The Petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the order as the reason for delay. The Court observed that there is no specific period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts have established that courts must exercise self-restraint and may refuse to entertain belated petitions lacking reasonable explanation for delay. The Court noted that the delay and laches attributable to the Petitioner's conduct disentitle him from relief. Since the order was uploaded on the common portal and the Petitioner was statutorily required to access the portal periodically, the Court found no acceptable explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's key legal reasoning and principles established include:
In conclusion, the Court held that the ex-parte order was validly communicated through the common portal in compliance with statutory provisions, and the Petitioner's delay in challenging the order without reasonable explanation disentitled him from relief. The writ petition was accordingly rejected.
|
