2019 (5) TMI 967 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Belated invocation of writ jurisdiction - Recovery of VAT dues - Form VAT 202 - HELD THAT - Even on receipt of the demand notice dated 15.07.2016, the petitioner did not choose to question the assessment order. It is not even the petitioner s case, in the writ affidavit, that his illhealth and that of his father had resulted in stoppage on their business. If the petitioner s company could carry on the business, notwithstanding the illness of its directors, there is no justification in not preferring an appeal against the assessment order, or to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court earlier. The power of the High Court to issue a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court, in the exercise of its discretion, does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition, and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked belatedly i.e. nearly two years after the assessment order was passed, and the explanation furnished for the delay is wholly insufficient, we see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the belated challenge to the assessment order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing Writ Petition challenging assessment order.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of purchasing and selling trucks, received a show cause notice for the tax period 2011-12 to 2014-15. Subsequently, an assessment order was issued on 31.05.2016, followed by a demand notice for unpaid tax on 15.07.2016. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition on 30.04.2018, almost two years after the assessment order, citing health issues as the reason for the delay. The petitioner claimed to have suffered from jaundice leading to Hepatitis-B, affecting both personal health and the health of the company's director, who eventually passed away in January 2018. Despite providing medical reports and prescriptions to support the health issues, the delay in filing the Writ Petition was deemed significant and inadequately explained.

The High Court emphasized that the power to issue a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and generally does not assist those who delay without a satisfactory explanation. Referring to the principle of laches or delay, the Court highlighted that inordinate and unexplained delays may lead to the Court declining to intervene, even if the State action in question is unconstitutional or illegal. Citing the case of State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Court reiterated that it does not aid the indolent and the lethargic, refraining from interference in cases of unduly belated invocation of jurisdiction. In this instance, the Court found the delay of nearly two years in challenging the assessment order to be unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition due to insufficient reasoning for the delay.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that there would be no order as to costs. Additionally, any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed. The judgment underscored the importance of timely legal actions and the consequences of unexplained delays in seeking judicial remedies, ultimately emphasizing the significance of justifying delays when invoking the Court's jurisdiction.