9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 628 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy not availed on approaching High Court - challenge to assessment order - determination of the taxable turnover and the tax payable - HELD THAT - Having not availed the statutory remedies available, the petitioner cannot seek to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an assessment order especially with respect to the computation of the turn over and the determination of the taxable turnover and the tax payable, as arrived at by the Assessing Officer. In the BGST Act, an appellate remedy is provided under Section 107, which has to be availed within a period of three months or with a delay within a further period of one month. It is trite law that when there is a specific period for delay condonation provided, there cannot be any extension of the said period by the Appellate Authority or by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner by his own failure has not availed the appellate remedy and in that circumstance, there can be no invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - there is no jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or abuse of process of Court averred or argued by the petitioner in the above writ petition - gross delay also stands against the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved: Assessment order challenge under Article 226 without availing statutory remedies.
Summary: Issue 1: Failure to avail statutory remedies before challenging assessment order under Article 226. The petitioner directly filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 24.02.2021 without approaching the appropriate authorities first. The Supreme Court had saved the limitation period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. However, the petitioner did not file an appeal within the extended period. Even if the provision for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act was applicable, the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022, which was not done in this case. Issue 2: Jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with appellable orders without availing alternate remedy. The High Court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with appellable orders. It was emphasized that the writ remedy is discretionary and can only be exercised in specific circumstances such as breach of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to follow due procedure. In this case, the petitioner did not raise any such valid contentions against the impugned order and failed to avail the statutory remedies provided under the BGST Act. Issue 3: Inability to challenge assessment order under Article 226 without availing appellate remedy. The petitioner's failure to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed period precluded them from approaching the High Court under Article 226 to challenge the assessment order. It was highlighted that when a specific period for delay condonation is provided, there can be no extension of that period by the Appellate Authority or the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner did not avail the statutory remedies, failed to raise valid contentions against the impugned order, and did not demonstrate any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice. The dismissal was also based on the petitioner's delay in filing the appeal and the lack of grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
|
