IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delay and laches in filing a writ petition can result in dismissal, emphasizing the need for timely action in legal proceedings.

ORDER :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Goondla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing through virtual mode for the petitioner and Sri A.V.Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.

2. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to the order of cancellation of petitioner’s registration of GST, dated 24.04.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been given retrospective effect. He further submits that the 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 of a provision of law, notification or regulation. The question was if it was open to the manufacturer to say that the decision of a High Court or the Supreme Court, as the ease may be, in the case of another person has made him aware of the mistake of law and therefore, he was entitled to refund of duty paid by him? The question was could he invoke Section 72 of the Contract Act in such a case and claim refund and whether in such a case and claim refund it can be said that reading Section 72 of the Contract Act along with Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for making such a claim for refund, whether by way of a suit or by way of a writ petition, is three years from the date of discovery of such mistake of law?

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on this part, in para-70 but we are of the considered view that he is mistaken that was the question as was involved.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the theory of mistake of law and the consequent period of limitation of three years from the date of discovery of such mistake of law cannot be invoked by an assessee taking advantage of the decision in another assessee’s case. All claims for refund ought to be, and ought to have been, only under and in accordance with Rule 11/Section 11B and under no other provision and in no other forum. The decisions of the Court saying to the contrary were overruled therein. In the aforesaid case it has not been held that the period of limitation for filing writ petition is three years.

10. In the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K.Zalpuri (2015) 15 SCC 602 on the aspect of delay and latches in filing the writ petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

21. In this regard reference to a passage emom from Karnataka y_untohn Power oeiver Corpn. coron. Ltd. Ltd. v. v. K.Thangappanz would be apposite: (SCC p. 325,para 6)

"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to asser