2024 (12) TMI 658 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - violation of principles of natural justice - delay in filing petition - HELD THAT - Against the impugned order, the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of an appeal. However, Mr. Rastogi submits that since there is a violation of principles of natural justice, this Court should entertain the petition rather than relegate the Petitioner to the alternate remedy. This petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders were made, i.e. much after the statutory period of appeal provided had expired. There is no explanation why this petition was not filed earlier, i.e. within the limitation period prescribed for instituting an appeal. While there can be no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such petitions must be instituted within a reasonable period. In any case, the delay is to be explained. Here, there is no explanation for the delay. Thus, no case is made out in this matter to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 12 January 2023; Violation of principles of natural justice; Exhaustion of alternate remedy; Delay in filing the petition; Vagueness in prayer clauses and amendments.

Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 12 January 2023:
The petitioner did not press for relief in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition. The challenge was specifically directed towards an Order-in-Original dated 12 January 2023. The petitioner argued that there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order, seeking the court's intervention instead of resorting to the alternate remedy of an appeal. However, the court noted that the allegations regarding non-supply of documents, order scope, and lack of details were vague and best addressed by the Appellate Authority.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that there was a violation of principles of natural justice, justifying the court's intervention without exhausting the alternate remedy of an appeal. The court, however, found the allegations regarding non-supply of documents and other issues to be vague and best suited for consideration by the Appellate Authority. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the usual practice of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the court.

Exhaustion of Alternate Remedy:
The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The petitioner's argument of a violation of natural justice was not considered sufficient to bypass the requirement of pursuing an appeal. The court referred to a previous decision and highlighted that the petition did not present grounds compelling departure from the usual rule of exhausting alternate remedies. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the Appellate Authority was better equipped to address the issues raised.

Delay in Filing the Petition:
The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders were issued, exceeding the statutory period for appeal. The court noted the absence of any explanation for the delay in filing the petition. While acknowledging that there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court emphasized the importance of filing such petitions within a reasonable period and providing a valid explanation for any delay, which was lacking in this case.

Vagueness in Prayer Clauses and Amendments:
The court highlighted the vagueness and confusion in the prayer clauses and amendments of the petition. It noted that the allegations and amendments lacked specificity, making it challenging to discern the precise orders being challenged and the relevant details. The court emphasized the necessity for petitions to contain proper and clear details, including specific references to impugned orders and authorities involved. The court dismissed the petition, citing the lack of clarity and precision in the prayer clauses and amendments as contributing factors.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust alternate remedies, the absence of a valid explanation for the delay in filing, and the vagueness in the prayer clauses and amendments. The court underscored the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the need for petitions to be precise and detailed in presenting legal challenges.