9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 58 - HC - GSTTime limitation for filing petition - validity of order passed u/s 62 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The writ petition has been filed on 24th February, 2020 - Even if we are to assume that the writ petitioner has approached this Court upon receipt of the impugned order only on December, 2019, the delay of six months, being the date from passing of the impugned order and the date of receipt of the same by the writ petitioner, clearly reflects on the question of bona fides of the writ petitioner. Since the order dated 3rd June, 2019, has already been passed by the concerned respondent authority, we do not consider the facts and circumstances of the case to be of such a nature to invoke our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition is disposed of with the observation that if the writ petitioner has taken steps in respect of the order dated 3rd June, 2019, the concerned respondent authority shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
Issues: Challenge to order dated 3rd June, 2019 under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Delay in approaching the court. Invocation of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court of Allahabad heard a writ petition challenging an order dated 3rd June, 2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Varanasi, under section 62 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petition was filed on 24th February, 2020. The Court noted a delay of six months from the passing of the impugned order to the date of receipt by the petitioner, raising concerns about the petitioner's bona fides. Despite this delay, the Court considered the circumstances and held that they did not warrant the invocation of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that since the order had already been passed by the respondent authority, it did not find the case suitable for the exercise of its extraordinary discretionary powers. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner had taken any steps regarding the order dated 3rd June, 2019, the concerned respondent authority should handle the matter in accordance with the law. The Court's decision underscored the importance of timely legal actions and the limitations on the Court's intervention based on the specific circumstances of each case.
|
