IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.02.2026 SAAR TRADERS …. PETITIONER V/S SUPERINTENDENT, CGST, RANGE IV, DIVISION MOHALI AND ANR …. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present : Mr.G.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

LISA GILL, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside order dated 28.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’) raising demand of tax alongwith interest and penalty.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. Show cause notice dated 18.11.2024 issued under Section 73(1) of the Act is stated have been issued beyond limitation provided in Section 73(2) of the Act. Reply thereto was filed by the petitioner on 09.01.2025. However, the authority has wrongly passed order dated 28.01.2025 statedly beyond limitation period provided under Section 73(10) of the Act.

3. It is noticed that this writ petition challenging order dated 28.01.2025 statedly received on 03.02.2025 has been filed on 06.02.2026. Upon query by this Court as to the reason for delay in filing of this writ petition challenging order dated 28.01.2025, learned counsel for petitioner submits that detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 18.11.2024 had been filed. Petitioner assumed that in view of said comprehensive reply, proceedings would be concluded and therefore, it did not have any reason to verify the uploading of an order on the GST, Common Portal. It is submitted that in any case said order was not communicated in accordance with law.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing the file, we are of the considered opinion that there is substantial delay in approaching this Court while challenging order dated 28.01.2025 which is otherwise admittedly in an appealable order. In terms of Section 107 of the Act, appeal could have been filed by the petitioner within a period of 90 days. Such a course of action was admittedly not taken by he petitioner. There is no detail in the writ petition as to when the petitioner came to know of passing of order dated 28.01.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to inform about the same even at the time of hearing.

5. Admittedly there is no limitation for filing of a writ petition, however, it is settled position that a litigant should approach the Court within a reasonable period of time. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in DDA vs. Tejpal and ors. (2024) 7 SCC 433 held that a party who is insensitive to the value of civil remedies and who does not assert his claim with promptitude is denied the ability to enforce even an otherwise rightful claim. Thus, the argument that petitioner has a good case on merits, therefore, interference should be caused is devoid of any merit, hence rejected.

6. Similarly the plea that petitioner shall be left remediless cannot come to aid of petitioner in the given factual matrix. In this regard, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1506 where referring to the earlier decision of a Constitution Bench held as under :-

“12. That apart, the majority view in a previous Constitution Bench in A. V Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani reads thus:

“14. ..., we must express our dissent from the reasoning by which the learned Judges of the High Court held that the writ petitioner was absolved from the normal obligation to exhaust his statutory remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If a petitioner has disabled himself from availing himself of the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the prescribed time, he cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the Court dealing with his petition under Article 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour. Inde