Supreme Court has laid down the curtains on thrs aspect in Robust Hotels (pl v. EIH Ltd.r, lzorzy r scc oz

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 a writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Form DRC No. 13 dated 12-08-2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 4 Bank attaching.the bank accounts of the Petitioner as being void illegal arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pieased to suspend the Form DRC No. '13 dated 12-08-2013 issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 3 Bank. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: M/s. PRAVALIKA FOR SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, senior standing counsel for CBIC Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.25839 of 2o24 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble tle Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernaldes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, appearing respondent Nos. I to 3. .for

2. The petitioner suffered an Order-in-Original on 06.01.2022' This writ petition is hled on I8.O9.2024.

3. The petitioner, admittedly, did not prefer any appeal against the Order in-Original dated O6.01.2022. The singular argument advanced by iearned counsel for the petitioner is that providing the DRC-07 before passing the Order-in-Original was mandatory and the same was issued only on 24.09.2024. Thus, even if Order-in-Original is not called in question, the bank attachment founded upon a defective Order-in-Original without furnishing DRC-07 is liable to be interfered with ' 4 . Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel representing' Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, opposed I i 2 the prayer on the basis of memo filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 arrd urged thal the DRC-07 was actually uploaded on 27.06.2023. A photo copy of ;-elevant portal relating to GST DRC-07 is filed for ready releren cr:.

5. The grier,,iltce relating to the bank attachment has direct nexus with the ()rder-in-Original. In other words, it is the Order- in-Original vrhir:h became the reason for the bank a ttachment Despite repeaterl query, learned counsel for the petitior:er has not shown any interest to assail the Order in-Original. The contention of the learned counsei for the petitioner is that since DRC-07 has not been issued before passing the Order-in-Original, -.here is no need to challenge the Order-in-Original. For three reas(,ns, we are not able to persuade ourselves with this line of argume nt. Firstly, as per the stanC taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3, DIIC-07 was indeed brought ,rn portal on 27.06.2023 and secondlv. if an order (Order-in-Original) is bad in law, the litigant cannot assrlme that it is bad in lavr,. Even a void order needs to be cha llenged in appropriate proct:edings. The Supreme Court has laid down the curtains on thrs aspect in Robust Hotels (pl Ltd. v. EIH Ltd.r, ' lzorzy r scc oz: :gta 3 Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group2, State of Kerala v. M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoths and Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bosea' 6 In Robust Hotels (Pl Ltd. (supra), it was held as under: "42. Tlnis Court further held that it is not open either to a party to the lis or to any third parw to determine at their own that an order passed bv a court is valid or void. A parW to the lis or the third partv who considers an order passed bv a court as voidable or non est, must approach the court of comPetent urisdiction to have the said order set aside on such as may be available in law..." (Emphasis Supplie d)

7. In Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia (supra), it was held as under: osi[ion that red bv a com a settled 1egal proP ouires to be so decla even if an order is "16. It is pe tent forum and 1t void, it re is not permissible for anl/ person to ignore the same merelv void. ln State of inion the order is because in his op Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar ManjeiMani kothl,laduuil [(1996) 1 SCC 435], Tayabbhai M. Bagasaru;allav' Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. l(1997) 3 SCC 4431, M' Meenakshi v. Metadin Aganual t(2OO6) 7 SCC 47Ol and Sneh Gupta v . Deui SoruP f( 2OOg) 6 SCC 1941, this Court held that whether an order is valid or void, cannot be determined bv the es. For setting aside such an order, even if void, the has to approach the appropriate forum lT. h State of Punjab v. Gurdeu Singh[(t9911 4 SCC 1] this Court held that a partv assrieved bv the invalidiw of an order h the court for relief of declaratio n that the has to aoDroac order asainst him is lnoperative and therefore, not binding this Court Placed upon him. While deciding the said case, ' (zo r t) : scc :o: 'lreeoy t scc a:s o (rggo) t scc zr+ ) 4 reliance upolr the judgment in Smith v. Ensf Elloe RDC [1956 AC 736: (1956) 2 WLR 888 : (1956) i All trR 8551 , ,vherern Lord Radclilfe observed : (AC pp. 769-70) "An or<lt:r, even if not made in good faith. is still an a ble of iesai consequences. It bears no brand ACt CA ditv' [on] its forehead. Unless the nccessi !ry of rnvali procerxli ngs are taken at law to e stzrblish the car.lse of invaliditv and to set it quashed or otherw ise upset- it will remain as effective for its ostensiltle purposq as the most impeccable of orders."

1.8.ln Sultan Sadikv. Sanjag Raj Subba[(2OO ) 2 SC(] 3771, this Court took a similar view observing that once an ,:rrder is declared norr est bv the court only then the iudgrnent of qqllity would operate erqc omnes i.e. for and against e,/eryone luch a declaration is permissible tf thr: court concerned. S comes to lhr ) conclusion that the author of the order lacks inherent juri sdiction/ competence and therelore, it cc,mes to ,n that the order suffers from patent an( latent the conclusic invalidity. zLtion is void /voidable. the oartv assrieved

19. Thus. from the above it emerg es that cven if the order notili(' by the same cartnot decide that the said order / notification rs not binding upon it. It has to approach the court for seekirq such declaration 'lhe order may be hypothetically a null ty and even if its invalidity is challenged before the courl in ;l given circumstar:ce, the court may refuse to quash thc szrme on various grcuLrrds including lhe standing of the petitiur)e r or on the ground ,t-'delay or on the doctrine o[ waiver or an.,- other legal reason. Ihe order may be void for one purpose or for one person, it rnay not be so for another purpose or another person. 8 In M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth (supra), it was held as Lrnder

7. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of thr: case. We are of the view that the order passed inter partes n CRp No. 344O of 1977 dated 2-11-tg77, has becomi final, and it 5 concludes the matter. The observations made in the proceedings, at the instance of the first respondent regarding the validity of the order of the Board, in CRp No. 3696 of 1977 , will not, in any way, affect the legality and validity of the proceedings declining to implead Respondents 3 and 4 or the order passed in revision therefrom - CRp No. 3440 of l97T.lt is true that the proceedings dated 2a-6-1gZZ were observed to be void in law in CRP No. 3696 of I97Z, fited, by the first respondent. In our opln10n, even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-existent in aIl cases and in all situations. Ordinarilv. such an order will. in fact, be effective inter partes until it is successfullv avoided or challensed in a hisher forum. Mere use of the word toid' is not determinative of its lesaI impact. The word 'void' has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity depending upon the gravity of the inhrmit5r, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise and in this case, thc only complaint about the initiation of the suo motu proceedings by the Board was, that it was not initiated on intimation by the State Land Board about the non-frling of the statement as required by Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, this is not a case where the infirmity is fundamental. It is unnecessary to consider the matter further.

8. Ln Halsbury's Lanas of England, 4th trdn., (Re-issue) Vol 1(1) in para 26, p. 31, it is stated, thus: "If an act or decision, or an order or other instrument is invalid, it should, in principle, be null and void for all purposes; and it has been said that therc are no degrees of nullity Even thoush such an act is wrong and lackins in iurisdi ction, however, it subsists and remains fuily effective unless and until it is set aside bvaco urt of comoetent urisdiction. Untii its validitv is challensed. its leeality is preserved." ln the Judicial Reuieut of Administrotiue Action, De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, 1995 Edn., at pp. 259-6O the law is stated thus: "The erosion of the distinction between jurisdictional errors and non-jurisdictional errors has, as we have seen, correspondingly eroded the distinction between void and voidable decisions. The courts have become increasingly impalient with the distinction, to the 6 extenl: ,.hat the situation today can be summarise,l as follorvs 1 set asirle or otherwise held to be invalid b compete nt iurisdiq:tion." Al1 official decisions are presumed to be valid r.ntil y a cou;t of Similarly, S.'ade and Forsyth in Administratiue LaLt, lieventh trdn., 1994, have stated the law thus at pp.34l 342: every unlawful administrative act, houn.:ver invalirl, is merely voidable. But this is no more t'ran the tru ism that in most situations the only u'a.],. to resist lrnlawful action is by recourse to Lhe lavr,. n a well-known passage l,ord Radcliffe said: An order, even if not made in good faith , is still an act capabk of leqal cons equences. It bears no branrl of invalidit'r upon its forehead. Unless thc neces:.,4ry procetllir-rqs are taken at law to establish Jhe cause of invali<lir [. lI rvill rc'nrain as effective for its ostensible purpos( AS thc rnrrst impeccable of orders.' This rnust be equally true even where the brzrn< I of invalidir-v is plainly visible: for there also the or der can effective lv be resisted in law onl b obtainins the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to thc court hrts been pointed out repeatedly in the Horrs: of Lords arLd Priry Council withont distinction be tr,r,:en patent i urd latent defects." The above statement of the law supports our view order of tltt: Board dated 28-6-1977, declining to Respondent:, 3 and 4 (which stood confirmcd in concludcs I.Li€ matter against Respondents 3 and 4." llrat the irnplead r,:vision) 9 In Shiv Chander Kapoor (supra), the Supreme lourt held (Emphas is Supplied) as under '23. ln Wadr: s Administratiue Laut, 6th edn. at pp. lr51-53, there is an I luminating discussion of this topic. It ha s been pointed out that toid' is meaningless in an absolute sense; and hnless 1 he necessary proceedings are take n at law to 7 establish the cause of invaliditv and to set it quashed or it will remain as effective for its ostensible otherwise upset, purpo se as the most impeccable of orders'. In the words of Lord Diplock, "the order would be presumed to be valid unless the presumption was rebutted in compe tent lesal proceedings lBd.: Hoffman-La Roche v. Secy. of by a party entitled to sue" State for Trade and Industry, 1975 AC 2951" (trmphasis SupPlied)

10. In absence of challenging the Order in-Original, no case is made out for interference. We decline interference for yet another reason. The Order-in-Original was issued on 06.01.2022. No 'appeal was preferred. The writ petition is also not filed within the stipulated time limit prescribed for preferring the appeal. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltds has opined as under: "19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.(supra), which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd.vs. Union of India & Ors.19 and aiso of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central trxcise (Appeall), Bangalore2O. The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premisc. For, these decrsions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 1995 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee 5 (2O2Ol 1. SCC 681 I I I' I 8 eriod of of writ Kar. on Lssed in imits of rules of such a qround hat bc titioner I of the . period ition of in the e.Iudge oration (Emphasis Su pplied)

11. For these crlmulative reasons, admission is dectined and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneo -rs petitions pending, if any, shall star.r d closed 't //TRUE COPYII SD/-N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECT{ON OFFICER To 3 4 Secundra bad Commissionerate

1. The Supe rintendent of Central Tax Kapra Range, U p pal Division, 2. The Assistant Commissioner, U ppal CGST Division, Uppat CGST Commissionerale Secundrabad The Co mmissioner of Central Tax, Secundrabad Commissionertrte The Ma nager, Allahabad Bank presently lndain Bank) 376_435 Main Road, Himaya t Nagar, H yderabad One CCtoSRl M NAGA DEEPAK , Advocate [oPU One CC to SRt t) OMINIC FERNANDES, senior sta loPUCl Two CD Copies nd ing counsel for CBIC 5 b. 7 PSK. LS @- i HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 I ORDER WP.No.25839 of 2024 ffi?,F.+\' ,)i". 7 i.) U (' 20AIn mn 'i 'ri . /-, -- ".i.:.- '.'.'- - ,.;/ -- ----)' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION wrTHopT cosTs i/ .r \ i-" a\