Case Law Details
Indian Tours & Travel Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
In a significant ruling concerning delayed challenges to tax adjudication orders, the Telangana High Court in M/s. Indian Tours & Travels v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax refused to entertain a writ petition filed nearly four years after the passing of the Order-in-Original under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Court reiterated that extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked after inordinate delay, especially when statutory remedies were available. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the High Court dismissed the petition while leaving it open to the petitioner to seek any permissible statutory remedy.
Case Background
The petitioner, M/s. Indian Tours & Travels, challenged the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 relating to the tax period from October 2014 to March 2017 under the Finance Act, 1994.
According to the petitioner:
- The proprietor was not well educated and lacked knowledge of tax laws.
- The business was fully dependent on advice given by its authorized representative.
- Taxes had already been paid and the demand raised in the adjudication order would allegedly result in double taxation.
- The petitioner claimed to have become aware of the order only after issuance of Form GST DRC-13 dated 11.12.2025 to its bank account.
Based on these grounds, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief against the adjudication order.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Telangana High Court was:
Whether a writ petition challenging a tax adjudication order can be entertained after an unexplained delay of nearly four years?
The Court also examined whether the petitioner’s explanation regarding lack of legal knowledge and dependence on consultants was sufficient to condone such delay.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
1. The proprietor was not well versed in taxation matters.
2. The business relied entirely on professional advice from an authorized representative.
3. Taxes were already paid and therefore the demand amounted to double taxation.
4. Knowledge of the impugned order arose only after the bank garnishee proceedings through Form GST DRC-13.
The petitioner therefore sought interference from the High Court despite the lapse of substantial time.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Department strongly opposed the writ petition and argued that:
1. The petition suffered from gross delay of nearly four years.
2. The petitioner had actively participated in adjudication proceedings and filed replies earlier.
3. The explanation offered was insufficient and unacceptable.
4. The Supreme Court judgment in Glaxo Smith Kline clearly bars entertainment of such belated writ petitions.
The Department therefore requested dismissal of the writ petition.
Court Observations
The Telangana High Court observed that:
- The petitioner had admittedly participated in adjudication proceedings earlier.
- Mere lack of education or dependence on tax consultants cannot justify extraordinary delay.
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised casually where statutory remedies are ignored for years.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Glaxo Smith Kline squarely applied to the present facts.
The Court specifically noted that the delay was inordinate and the explanation failed to satisfactorily justify the prolonged inaction.
Final Judgment
The Telangana High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
However, the Court clarified that:
- The petitioner may still explore any statutory remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994, if permissible in law.
No order as to costs was passed.
Author’s Analysis
This judgment highlights several practical lessons for taxpayers and professionals:
1. High Courts Are Reluctant to Entertain Belated Tax Challenges
Courts consistently refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction where taxpayers sleep over their rights for years.
2. Participation in Proceedings Weakens Later Claims
Once replies are filed and proceedings are attended, later claims of ignorance become difficult to sustain.
3. Consultant Negligence Is Not Always a Valid Defence
Taxpayers cannot indefinitely rely upon mistakes or negligence of consultants to justify non-action.
4. Statutory Remedies Must Be Pursued Promptly
Tax statutes prescribe timelines for appeals and challenges. Ignoring those timelines can permanently prejudice legal rights.
5. Glaxo Smith Kline Continues to Shape Tax Litigation
The Supreme Court ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline is now routinely relied upon by High Courts to reject delayed writ petitions in GST and pre-GST matters.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court’s ruling in M/s Indian Tours & Travels reinforces a crucial principle in tax litigation — delay defeats equity. Even where substantive grounds may exist, courts are unlikely to interfere if taxpayers approach the writ court after years of inaction.
The judgment serves as a reminder that assessees must remain vigilant regarding adjudication orders, appellate timelines, and departmental proceedings, as reliance on consultants alone may not protect them from adverse legal consequences later.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ravi, representing learned counsel Ms. K.Prabhabati, appears for the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. The order-in-original dated 28.06.2022 for the tax period October 2014 to March 2017 under the Finance Act, 1994, has been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has sought to explain the delay on the ground that the proprietor of the petitioner was not well educated and not well versed in tax laws and was completely dependent upon the advice of the authorized representative, but, that does not cut much ice, more so, when the petitioner had participated in the proceedings by furnishing reply as well.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had paid the taxes and the demand by the impugned order-inoriginal would amount to double taxation. The petitioner became aware of the impugned order-in-original only upon issuance of Form GST DRC-13 dated 11.12.2025 to the bank of the petitioner i.e, respondent No.4. He submits that the delay in approaching the writ court has been properly explained.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs submits that the writ petition has been filed after a delay of four years. Therefore, it may not be entertained following theratio of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited1 .
6. Having regard to the inordinate delay in filing the instant writ petition and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petition is not fit to be entertained in view of the ratio in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra). It is open to the petitioner to seek any statutory relief, if permissible under the Finance Act, 1994.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
