Case Law Details
V.N.V. Builders Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that even though the time limit is not prescribed for filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same should be filed within a reasonable time.
Facts- The petitioner asserts that the order dated 09.01.2019 was not communicated to the petitioner through any mode, including by uploading the same on the GST portal. In those circumstances, upon receipt of information from the garnishee, the petitioner approached the first respondent on 15.05.2024 with a request to furnish a certified copy of the impugned order. Upon receipt thereof, the present writ petition was filed.
Conclusion- Held that although a period of limitation is not prescribed for the initiation of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is needless to say that the petitioner is required to approach the Court within a reasonable time. By taking into account the fact that the order is dated 09.01.2019 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 24.05.2024, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 09.01.2019 in respect of assessment period July 2017 to December 2017 is challenged.
2. The petitioner asserts that the order dated 09.01.2019 was not communicated to the petitioner through any mode, including by uploading the same on the GST portal. In those circumstances, upon receipt of information from the garnishee, the petitioner approached the first respondent on 15.05.2024 with a request to furnish a certified copy of the impugned order. Upon receipt thereof, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was received by the petitioner for the first time on or about 25.01.2024, and that the writ petition was filed shortly thereafter. He further submits that the bank account of the petitioner was attached and that the petitioner would not be in a position to continue the business unless the impugned order is interfered with.
4. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. By referring to notice dated 26.11.2020, he points out that such notice referred to the DRC-7 issued on 09.01.2019. Since the petitioner has filed this document in the paper book, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was aware of the impugned order in the year 2020. Therefore, he contends that this writ petition should not be entertained.
5. As correctly pointed out by learned Government Advocate, pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2019, by notice dated 26.11.2020, the petitioner was called upon to remit the tax dues in relation to the order dated 09.01.2019. In spite of receiving the notice, the petitioner did not take any steps to obtain a copy of such order within a reasonable time. Instead, after receipt of the garnishee order, the petitioner addressed a communication to the first respondent on 15.05.2024 requesting for a certified copy of the impugned order and filed this writ petition upon receipt thereof.
6. Although a period of limitation is not prescribed for the initiation of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is needless to say that the petitioner is required to approach the Court within a reasonable time. By taking into account the fact that the order is dated 09.01.2019 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 24.05.2024, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief.
7. For reasons set out above, W.P.No.14453 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
