2023 (5) TMI 883 - HC - GST

Maintainability of writ petition where the assessee has failed to file the statutory appeal within the prescribed time limit - Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to properly determine and specify the reasons towards creating demand against the petitioner - concealment of credits - failure to file returns - time limitation - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that against the impugned order, the petitioner has not filed statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. Since the limitation of filing appeal has already expired, the petitioner now cannot prefer appeal against the impugned order. Now, the question is whether this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain writ petition challenging the impugned order on the ground that limitation period for filing statutory appeal has already expired? - The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the impugned order was passed on 16.2.2022 and per Section 107 of the Act of 2017, limitation provided for challenging the impugned order by way of appeal is 30 days and that limitation period could be extended by the appellate authority for a further period of one month subject to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that the person aggrieved was prevented by sufficient causes from presenting the appeal within a period of three months. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed appeal before the appellate authority within the prescribed limitation and has directly filed this writ petition before this Court on 14.2.2023 i.e. almost after eight months of expiry of limitation period. After expiry of the limitation period of filing appeal, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order is not maintainable. The petitioner has not filed any statutory appeal before the appellate authority within the limitation period and has directly filed this writ petition before this Court after eight months of the expiry of limitation, as per the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Ors. s case 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT , the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained as being not maintainable. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, failure to respond to intimation letters and show cause notices, violation of natural justice principles, maintainability of writ petition due to alternative statutory remedy, and the timeliness of filing an appeal.

Challenged Order and Background:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 16.2.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner assessing a demand of Rs. 15,10,570 under Section 73 of the Act of 2017. The petitioner, a proprietor-firm in the hospitality sector, failed to respond to intimation letters and show cause notices, leading to the impugned order.

Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked proper reasons as required by Section 73 of the Act of 2017, violating natural justice principles and the right to a fair hearing. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and without jurisdiction due to the absence of specified reasons.

Statutory Remedy and Concealment Allegations:
The respondents contended that the petitioner concealed a significant credit amount in the bank account while filing GST returns, leading to a demand of Rs. 15,10,571. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to file proper GSTR for the financial year 2017-18, justifying the liability.

Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The respondents highlighted the availability of statutory appeal and cited relevant legal precedents to support their stance.

Timeliness of Filing Appeal and Writ Petition:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was non-speaking and did not comply with the Act of 2017, justifying the writ petition's maintainability. However, the court noted that the limitation for filing an appeal had expired, rendering the writ petition challenging the order not maintainable.

Court's Decision and Legal Precedent:
The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's failure to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Referring to legal precedent, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors., the court held that the writ petition filed after the expiration of the limitation period was not maintainable.