TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has held that High Courts cannot entertain writ petition against assessment orders beyond the period of statutory period - As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited case [ 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] , a writ petition beyond the statutory period of limitation is liable to be dismissed. There are no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was in turn was based on an inspection on 10.02.2018 by the Department in presence of the Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner. 5. Specifically it is submitted that the inspection was contrary to authorization under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 6. In support of the present writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases:- i. Prakashsinh Hathisinh Udavat vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.15365 of 2019; ii. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/s.Serajuddin and Company, Kolkata, I.T.A.No.39 of 2022 and etc. 7. That apart it is submitted that at the time when the notice was issued to the petitioner, which is a proprietary concern, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities during inspection. The information gathered during inspection on 10.02.2018 cannot be said to be without any authority of law in as much as there was a prior authorization by the Commissioner of the State Tax on 09.02.2018 authorizing inspection. 14. The petitioner having failed to respond to the notice cannot challenge the impugned order either before the Appellate Commissioner after limitation or before this Court long after the limitation. Before the Appellate Authority the appeal would be time barred and before this Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches. 15. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise selfimposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In paragraph 7, the Court observed thus:- (Thansingh Nathmal case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419], AIR p. 1423) 7. Against the order of the Commissioner an order for reference could have been claimed if the appellants satisfied the Commissioner or the High Court that a question of law arose out of the order. But the procedure provided by the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 18. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in 18 (2016) 1 SCC 315 reference to Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iples of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in ONGC [ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
