Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (6) TMI 677 - HC - GST


Issues involved:
The petitioner seeks to quash the demand raised by the authority under Annexures-7 and 8 series, claiming payment made through statutory return form GSTR-3B under Annexure-5 series.

Details of the judgment:
The petitioner contended that the demand for 2017-18 was raised by the authority through DRC-07 dated 18.10.2019, rectified on 17.03.2020, and a demand for 2018-19 was raised via an assessment order dated 29.07.2021. The petitioner argued that he is not liable to pay. The petitioner also highlighted issues with the provisional ID for enrollment on the common portal used by the authority for assessment.

The Standing Counsel for CT & GST argued that the demands for 2017-18 and 2018-19 were challenged in 2023, which is barred by limitation under Section 107 of the OGST Act. It was emphasized that the petitioner failed to enroll on the common portal despite being allotted a provisional ID, leading to the assessment being made. The counsel contended that the assessment order is appealable, and the petitioner should have pursued that route instead of approaching the Court through a writ petition after a significant delay.

The Court noted that the petitioner challenged the demands raised by the authority under Annexure-7 and Annexure-8, claiming payment through Annexure-5 series. The Court highlighted that if the petitioner had indeed paid the demands, it was their responsibility to inform the authority of the error in the demand notices. Instead, the petitioner waited for three years before approaching the Court. The Court also pointed out the cancellation of the provisional certificate of registration due to the petitioner's failure to enroll on the common portal. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy exists.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates