Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Darshan Cotton Industries, represented by its Managing Partner Chetan Mahashettyrvar and registered under GSTIN 36AAIFD0014H1ZY, challenged an ex-parte Order-in-Original No.36/NRM/2019-GST dated 25.09.2019, passed under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the CGST, SGST and IGST Acts, 2017, for the tax periods September 2017 to April 2018. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice, personal hearing notice and the order itself were never served on it, leaving it unaware of the consequences and unable to file a statutory appeal. Before the Telangana High Court, the Department produced correspondence showing the order was emailed to the petitioner's registered address on 01.11.2019 and delivered.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 25.09.2019 was validly served on the petitioner by email.
  2. Whether the petitioner, approaching the Court roughly four years after the order, is entitled to a certified copy to enable a fresh statutory appeal, notwithstanding delay and laches.
  3. Whether a later-issued certified copy can be used to compute a fresh limitation period for filing the appeal, in light of the CBIC Notification dated 02.11.2023.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Order-in-Original was never duly served, so the petitioner was unaware of it and could not file a timely appeal.
  • Since a certified copy could not be obtained from the Department, the petitioner sought a direction for its supply.
  • Under the CBIC Notification dated 02.11.2023, the petitioner still has a right to prefer an appeal, once a certified copy is obtained, without the appeal being treated as time-barred.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Correspondence dated 25.09.2019 showed that the Order-in-Original was duly emailed to the petitioner's registered email address on 01.11.2019 and delivered.
  • The writ petition, filed roughly four years after the order, should not be entertained on the ground of delay and laches.
  • If the petitioner applies for a certified copy, the Department is willing to supply one, but that fresh date of issuance should not be used to compute the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, given the roughly four-year gap since the impugned order.
  • It nonetheless left open the petitioner's right to prefer an appeal if permitted under applicable rules, guidelines or circulars, including the Notification dated 02.11.2023.
  • It clarified that if the petitioner applies, the Department may consider granting a fresh certified copy, but the fresh date of issuance cannot be used to compute the limitation period for filing the appeal.
  • The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Important Clarification

Where a GST Order-in-Original was served years earlier, including by email, and the assessee approaches the High Court belatedly, courts may decline to examine the service dispute on grounds of delay and laches, while still preserving a conditional liberty to seek a certified copy and pursue the statutory appeal under any relaxation notification then in force — but a later-issued certified copy cannot itself be used to reset or extend the original limitation period for that appeal.

Sections Involved

  • Section 125, CGST Act, 2017 — the general penalty provision under which the impugned Order-in-Original was passed.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction, exercised here subject to the doctrine of delay and laches.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a procedural disposal declining interference on grounds of delay and laches, not a merits adjudication of the service dispute or the underlying penalty. In substance the outcome favours the Department's position that the four-year-old order should not be reopened on the writ side, though a conditional and limited liberty is preserved for the Assessee to seek a certified copy and pursue an appeal, so it cannot honestly be called a clean win for either side.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
  • Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 30428 OF 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice P. Sam Koshy and Hon'ble Justice N. Tukaramji
  • Decision Date: 9 November 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of without costs; declined on delay/laches with liberty to appeal

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.