Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent statutory appellate remedies or periods of limitation prescribed by a special statute, especially where the petitioner has failed to exercise due diligence or provide valid grounds for delay, and no gross violation of natural justice exists.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following substantial reliefs:-

" I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Assessment Order dated 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-1) passed by the Respondent No. 3, having been passed without jurisdiction;

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Notice dated 17.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-2) having been passed/issued without jurisdiction.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining Respondents and/or officers of the UP GST department from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner, in any manner, in respect of the Impugned Order dated 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-1)."

3. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the records, we are of the view that since the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice dated 17.03.2025 and pursuant to the said reply was also granted an opportunity of hearing, therefore, there is no question of any interference by this Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as apparently neither any jurisdictional error nor violation of principles of natural justice has been substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Further more, it is to be seen that the petitioner has come too late in the day before the Writ Court, as the show cause notice and the subsequent assessment order has been passed almost a year ago on 04.06.2025.

5. It is further seen that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in January, 2026, which was also beyond time, wherein the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the self same cause of action with better particulars. It is clear that the Court did not go into the merits of the case and/or the question of limitation in the first round of litigation.

6. We are rather surprised and are unable to countenance as to how can the petitioner file the present writ petition at this belated stage, merely to bypass the limitation prescribed for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 (1) of the GST Act. It is to be noted that the said Act provides for filing an Appeal within three months of communication of order sought to be challenged, with a further window of one month as per Section 107 (4) of the Act, in case sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the authority. We need not burden this order by the settled law that the prescribed limitation is to be strictly followed in Tax Laws, suffice to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments including the judgment in Singh Enterprises v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur , (2008) 221 ELT 163 (S.C.) has held that under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the delay cannot be condoned beyond what is prescribed under the Central Excise Act as the language of the said section specifically provides for condonation of delay of additional 30 days only. Section 85 of the Act is in pari materia with the above section. One may examine the Supreme Court judgment in Singh Enterprise's (supra) wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:—

"8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitte