Case Details: Nayan Enterprises vs. Commissioner of State Tax (2026) 41 Centax 298 (Jhar.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak, CJ. & Rajesh Shankar, J.
- Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra & Shri Deepak Sinha, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Aditya Kumar, A.C., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022, along with the summary issued in Form GST DRC-07, pertaining to the period April 2020 to March 2021. Subsequently, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled on 29.05.2022 with effect from 31.03.2022 and was later restored on 04.07.2023. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the adjudication order within the prescribed limitation period of three months, extendable by one month, under Section 107. Instead, the petitioner filed a writ petition on 26.07.2023 contending that the cancellation of registration prevented it from filing the appeal within time. It was further contended that the adjudication order was passed ex parte without proper service of notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities, however, submitted that show cause notices had been duly served and adequate opportunities of hearing were granted, which the petitioner failed to avail.
High Court Held
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed limitation period and had not shown any sufficient cause for such failure. It was observed that the cancellation of registration did not preclude the petitioner from filing an appeal, particularly when the adjudication order was passed prior to cancellation and the dispute related to a period when the registration was valid. The Court further held that the plea of lack of knowledge of the adjudication order was contrary to the record. It was also observed that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitation and alternate remedies. On the issue of natural justice, the Court held that since show cause notices were issued and opportunities of hearing were provided, the mere allegation of an ex parte order could not be sustained, and failure to avail such opportunities would not vitiate the adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Asstt. Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd — 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (SC) — Followed [Para 13]
- A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1327 (SC) — Followed [Para 15]
- Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India — (2025) 36 Centax 415 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 14]
- Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Majid, Superintendent of Taxes — AIR 1964 SC 1419 — Followed [Para 14]
