WP/35435/2025 of M/s 41 Internet Private Limited Vs Union of India on 24 November 2025

1. Union of lndia, Rep by Secretary (Revenue), North Block. New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Central Tax, Ringa Reddy GST Commissionerate, Jai Hind Enclave Road, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 5000g1. r ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Order-in-Original No. HYD-EXCUS-004-COM-067-2022-23 dated 28.o3.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy, GST Commissionerate as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to sdttled principles of law and violative of principles of natural justice and conseqr"ndy set aside impugned Order-in-Original No. HYD-EXCUS- 004-COM -067-2022-23*ldated"2B.o3.2o23 and further direct the Respondents to reconsider the matter de novo, after affording the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of person?l. hearing, in accordance with Clause 14.3 of the cBlC Master Circular dated:lO.OS.ZO17 and in adherence to the principles of natural justice.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Respondents to furnish all the relied documents, investigation records, notices, personal hearing records, and other relevant material sought by the petitioner through representation dated 18.06.2024, 06-05-2025 & RTI Application No. CECZtRtEt23tOOl6g in the interest of transparency and fair hearing, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Fetition-under-seution 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to impugned Order-in-Original No. HYD-EXCUS- 004-COM-067-2022- 23 dated 28.03.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy, GST Commissionerate pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MOHAN RAO BALLANI (PARTY lN PERSON) Counset for the Respondent No. 1: MR. B. MUKHERJEE Representing N BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: MR. DOMINIC FERNANDES SENIOR SC FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER

l! THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI.IUSTICE STIDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.35435 of 2025 ORDER, @er Hon'bte Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.Mohan Rao Ballani, the party-in person and Mr.B.Mukherjee, Iearned counsel representing Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.l and Mr.Dominic F-ernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to challenge the order- in-original dated 2g.03.2023 issued. by the znd respondent. At the outsef, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition suffers fi'orn creray and raches. The list of dates given by the petitioner arong with the writ petition itserf is a serf explanatory. The impugned order-in-originar is one which was passed on 2g-3.2023, which the petitioner himserf accepts in the writ petition to have received on 03.05.2023. The,petitioner thereafter appears ro have approached the writ court by firing a writ petition (sR) No.29g33 of 2023 was nor registered, but ar the sR stage itserfl, the same was withdrawn for the reasons best \\

I

known to him. After the withdrawal of the afor-resaid writ petition, he preferred a rectification petition before the authorities which have got rejected on 20.02.2024. The petitioner thereafter approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (cEsTAT), Regionar bench at Hyderabad vide Appear Diary No'307392024.The said appear gor dismissed on 27.0g.2024 on the ground of defaurt in not making the pre_deposit of 7.5%0, which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of law. The petitioner again does not avair any Iegar recourse against the said rejection of appear. After some time, he again approaches the authority by way of another recrification petition on 22.rr.2024. The said rectification arso stood rejected on 29.0r.20z5with liberty to file newly constituted appear. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred wP-No.78g r of 2025 before this courr, which he withdrew on 24-04-2025. The petitioner waits for another six months and filed the present writ petition on r3. r I .2025. Meanwhile, from the pleadings itself it appears that the petitioner had lodged complaints against the officers of the Department with atlegations of demand of bribe'and other similar allegations. The petitioner's case also travelted to the CBI as also to the Lokpal of / itI t j . :

.,,: t il ! l I jj ;l I i I I t t I I I I I I I I Ii i India and they had also conducted enquiry and found that allegations leveled by the petitioner, so far as bribe is concemed, all were found to be false and baseless and the proceedings along with complaint that the petitioner had filed before the Lokpal were closed there itself.

3. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition taking into consideration the judgment of'Hon'bre Supreme court in ccT v. Glaxo smith Krine consumer Hearth care Ltd.,r, wherein, in para Nos.l g and 19, it is held as under: ,:,g:,*;i:,i [f,i:,i:']:*:.T:,lu:,?, in raking the vicw thar Article 142 of court can ,u*.r,," c,orrii*,",,,;l;:,r"^ of its prenary powers under eni"r"-i)a;fi J.tf,[J;J,,H:*::l^rthtl:^Hff jTl flff: X?*[:l t'v ir, i," L.,; "Ji!'?ffil'fi''ilf ff.:",'i# co,,rtititilr.r,uruer by rhe High Court una". anil l",ilru of the ' (zOZo) 19 Supreme Couft cases 681 \ a

! : ; i ; i proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are pretnised ou the logic that provision such as Section 3l of the 2005 Act, cannot curtailthe jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles226 and227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking arvay the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court betore the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order b.y uay of u'rit pliitio1' ori the ground thaithe same is without jurisdictiorr or passed in "*..r, ofjurisdiction - by overstepping or c-ro.ssing the lirnits of jurisdiction i".frJirg in flagrant. aisrlgaia of .larv .and rules of procedure o. i, uiofition of [rinciples of natural justice' where no procedure i, ,p;;ifi;' The Higli Court may accede to such a challenge u"a """'lL" non-suit rhe. petitionei on the ground that alternative tffi";;;;t"Jv it availalle and that bc invoked bv the writ petitior'"'' ;;;;';;' irirtt *'it p"iition"t chooses to approach the High C""t ;ft;;;*pity of tnt nlu*i*um limitation pcr'iod of 60 days prescrib"d ;;t;'i"Jti"" 3l 'of the 2005 Act' the High Court cannot ai""gutO it'l"t';*; period fo' "d'""ul o( the grievattce and entertai" 'h: il;;;iioi "r t*rt-a part)- as a rnatter of course' Doirrg ,u ',outJuli" .;," i".in or tn" pi,I.ipie underll,ing the dicttttn or a three-ruds" ;;;;h oi 'r'i' gfillJltta:tg^lii;l',"j'tt'l Energlt 'rransnission corpn' 'd: ?il,ll i;:il cii,,t' r..u' *io. iCiri +lf In other words'' th: fu::'td issue a writ whtch t''tuy.,!: ;;;;*' does not mean that it *:-1::,' ;*ur,ring tne dispensation inconsistent with the legislative t"l"i':i;fr; '00"5 Act' That rvould explicitly prescribed under Sectto" i' ;r;;";' Uef inO 'tt'e shted ffi;;" id legislative scheme an< Provision otiose'

4. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' we find that the writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable and suffers from delay and laches as well' Moreover' the petitioner has not taken any steps at the appropriate time to assail the order passed by CESTAT on 27 '08'2024' wherein' his appeal was rejectedindefaultfornon-paymentofPre-depositrequired. Forboththegrounds,theWritPetitionfailsandis,accordingly, dismissed' No costs f ,,,',

To, MMT LS Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/ . PONNA KRISHNA ASS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER

1. One CC to MR. tr/ohan Rao Ballani, S/o Narasimha llani, R/o Flat No. 5O2, Sreeanatha Greens, Road No.3, Poojitha ave, Bachupally, Hyderabad - 500090.

2. Ohe-C-C to SRI-N BI-IU.JRNCA RAO (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), Advocate [OPUC]

3. 6ry1;aCid $ni ob1tlNl6 FERNANDES (SENloR SC FoR CBIC), Advocate IoPUCI

4. Two CD Copies tL

HIGH COURT DATED i2411112025

ORDER

WP.No.35435 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ., tlli. :l .t.,r, /.t -i{i 1 I Etc fl[t * ,)/

t rt $