9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 204 - HC - GSTValidity of demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act - SCN not served with any assessment order - HELD THAT - The statutory period of limitation for preferring an appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order, with a further period of one month towards condonation of delay, if any. The appellant, not having availed the alternate remedy under the statute, cannot feign ignorance of the statutory scheme under the GST Act, which accords a finality to those orders that have not been appealed against. The said statutory scheme of finality is not one that the learned Single Judge could have ignored either while considering whether or not to entertain the Writ Petition. This settled position in law has been reiterated in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT as also in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited and Others 2017 (3) TMI 1628 - SUPREME COURT . In the former decision, it was clearly held that even though the High Court can entertain a Writ petition against any order or direction passed or action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law. Taking note of the said settled position of law and finding that all that the learned Single Judge did was to follow the said dictum while dismissing the Writ Petition, there are no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the validity of a demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, failure to file a statutory appeal under the Goods and Services Tax Act within the prescribed time limit, and the appropriateness of entertaining a Writ Petition when an alternative remedy is available under the law. Validity of Demand Notice: The appellant, a proprietary-ship concern with CGST and KSGST registration, received a notice alleging excess input tax claim in violation of the GST Act. Despite claiming not to have received any assessment order, the Department contended that the order was uploaded on the GST portal. The appellant challenged the demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, arguing lack of service of the assessment order. The learned Single Judge found that since the assessment orders were communicated through the GST portal, the appellant was required to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed time limit. As the appellant failed to do so, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Failure to File Statutory Appeal: The appellant contended that due to not being aware of the assessment order, it could not file an appeal within the stipulated time. However, the court held that the order was served in accordance with the statutory requirements through the GST portal. The statutory period for filing an appeal is three months from the date of order communication, with an additional one-month condonable delay period. The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to utilize the statutory remedy provided under the GST Act cannot be excused by claiming ignorance of the process. Citing legal precedents, the court reiterated the importance of exhausting available remedies before seeking Writ relief. The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, emphasizing the finality accorded to unchallenged orders under the GST Act. Appropriateness of Writ Petition: The court referred to established legal principles that discourage the routine entertaining of Writ petitions when effective alternative remedies exist under the law. Relying on precedents, the court highlighted that Writ relief should not be sought as a matter of course when statutory avenues for appeal are available. In line with this reasoning, the court found no justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and subsequently dismissed the Writ Appeal.
|
