Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Manimala International – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax – Respondent
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 m
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.
The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of diligence and abuse of process, emphasizing the importance of filing replies to show cause notices to uphold principles of natural justice.
The court upheld the validity of extending limitation periods under GST laws, noting the necessity of availing alternative remedies while addressing delays in approaching writ jurisdiction.
The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction due to inordinate delay and the availability of alternative remedies, emphasizing that delays lead to injustice and that statutory authorities sh....
The exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be denied based on inordinate delay, especially when alternative remedies exist.
Court discretion under Article 226 is influenced by delay; unreasonable delays may bar relief, yet petitions filed within standard limitations need not require explanations.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and relief may be denied if delay in filing is not satisfactorily explained, especially when alternative remedies exist.
Inordinate delay in filing petitions without reasonable explanation can lead to dismissal, emphasizing the importance of promptness in asserting rights under Articles 32 and 226.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
