Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, HARISH TANDON, CJ
Abhinandan Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of CT & GST – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against extension of tax order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against jurisdiction and remedies. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on delay and laches. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. In the garb of challenging order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul, Odisha-opposite party no.2 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (collectively be called “the GST Act”) for the tax periods from April, 2019 to March, 2020, the petitioner craves to question the exercise of power under Section 168A to issue Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax, dated 31st March, 2023 vide Annexure-6 and Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28th December, 2023 vide Annexure-7 by the Government of India in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extending the period of limitation to pass an order under Section 73 by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner re
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 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 exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be denied based on inordinate delay, especially when alternative remedies exist.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and relief may be denied if delay in filing is not satisfactorily explained, especially when alternative remedies exist.
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 High Court cannot entertain a writ petition filed beyond the statutory limitation period for appeals as prescribed by special legislation, reaffirming established precedents.
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
