2023 (6) TMI 677 - HC - GST

Validity of demands raised by the authority vide Annexure-7 and Annexure-8 - contention of the petitioner is that he has already paid the amount vide Annexure-5 series - HELD THAT - If the contention of the petitioner that he has already paid the demands raised by the authority is accepted then it is the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the authority concerned indicating that the demands raised are erroneous and as such in view of the dues already paid vide Annexure- 5 series the demand notices be rectified. But instead of doing so the petitioner waited for three years and thereafter approached this Court challenging the assessment orders passed by the authority on 17.03.2020 for 2017-18 and 29.07.2021 for 2018-19. But the assessment order is very clear that the petitioner has been issued with a provisional ID for enrolment on the common portal but he has failed to enroll on the common portal. Therefore the provisional certificate of registration was cancelled as per the provision contained in Section 139 (1) of the CGST/OGST Act. The rate of GST for works contract service has been prescribed in Sl.No.3 of the Notification No.11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 of Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Notification bearing S.R.O. No.305/2017 dated 29.06.2017 of Finance Department Govt. of Odisha as amended by Notification No.20/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.08.2017 and Notification No.24/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 21.09.2017 at the rate of 12%. Therefore if the petitioner is aggrieved by such assessment order he could have preferred appeal within the time specified. Now at a belated stage the petitioner could not have approached this Court making request to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment. As such extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised particularly when an alternative remedy is available. Petition dismissed.

Summary

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.