9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 855 - HC - GSTTime limitation for filing Petition - petition filed beyond statutory period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT has held that High Courts cannot entertain the writ petition against assessment orders beyond the period of statutory period - As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, a writ petition beyond the statutory period of limitation is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Since these writ petitions have been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Respective GST Act Enactment of 2017 for filing statutory appeal they are liable to be dismissed. Reading of the impugned orders also indicates that the tax liability determined is the net liability after adjustment of ITC in GSTR- 2A. Therefore, even on this count there is no case made out for interfering with the Impugned Assessment Orders. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned orders passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017. 2. Petitioner's failure to file returns and pay tax dues. 3. Maintainability of writ petitions filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Orders The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the respondent, State Tax Officer (Intelligence), under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, in Form GST ASMT-13 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The impugned orders confirmed a demand along with interest due from the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload Form GSTR-3B and avail input tax credit on purchases, thus contending that the orders should be quashed. However, the court noted that the tax liability determined was the net liability after adjustment of ITC in GSTR-2A, and therefore, there was no case for interfering with the assessment orders. Issue 2: Failure to File Returns and Pay Tax Dues The petitioner, a manufacturer of desiccated coconut, failed to file regular returns and pay taxes on outward supplies due to business setbacks and customer defaults. Despite being issued notices and given opportunities to comply, the petitioner did not file the required GSTR-3B returns or pay the tax dues. The petitioner admitted to the tax liability during an inspection and agreed to pay the arrears but failed to do so. Consequently, the impugned orders were passed on 15.10.2019, assessing the tax liability to the best of the officer's judgment. Issue 3: Maintainability of Writ Petitions The court highlighted that the writ petitions were filed beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for filing an appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the court emphasized that High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions against assessment orders beyond the statutory period. The court reiterated the principle that the availability of an effective alternative remedy should be exhausted before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Conclusion The court dismissed the writ petitions, noting that they were filed beyond the statutory period of limitation and that the petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements for filing returns and paying tax dues. The court granted the petitioner liberty to seek time from the respondent for discharging the tax liability in installments. The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
