9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner's registration was suspended on 01.04.2023 without affording any opportunity of hearing and that the order has not been issued in the proper GST Form. Another submission is that the order has not been signed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after about one year of the impugned order. He submits that the show cause notice was given to the petitioner but he did not file response. It is further submitted that the order is signed digitally. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 6. On a specific query, to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the point of laches in filing the writ petition, he submits that the period of limitation for filing the writ petition is three years. He emphasized that the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Godrej Sara Lee ltd. v. The Excise and taxation Officer - cum - Assessing Authority, has so held. We carefully perused the said judgment. 7. There the facts were that there the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the duty was paid on account of mis-construction, mis-application or wrong interpretation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court after referring to the authority in State of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 326, para 9) "9....the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is in ordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after un-reasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay and laches. 57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he Should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity Inordinate delay in making the motion for writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court, [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, [(1992) 3 SCC 136: (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand. H.B. Munshi, [(1969) 1 SCC 110), Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, [(1970) 1 SCC 84]). 58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy." 8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : AIR 1970 SC 470] that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay. 9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, [(1986) 4 SCC 566: AIR 1987 SC 251] that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
