2024 (12) TMI 591 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - tax demanded on items for which the tax had already been paid - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, there are no substantial ground to deviate from the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies. Simply alleging a violation of natural justice or claiming that judgments of the Supreme Court or High Courts are not considered is insufficient. These contentions must be made good. By making such allegations, the parties must not try to argue the matter on merits and take chances. Prima facie, there are no apparent violations of natural justice or contradictions with clearly decided precedents on the subject. The contentions about the Petitioner being required to pay tax over items for which tax was already paid would involve investigating factual aspects which the Appellate Authority could best undertake. If the point was so plain, at least an application for rectification should have been filed within the prescribed period. This petition is declined to be entertained but the Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the impugned orders by instituting appeals before the Appellate Authority. If appeals are instituted within four weeks from today, the same should be considered and disposed of on merits without adverting to the limitation issue - petition is disposed off by keeping all parties' contentions open and by relegating the Petitioner to the remedy of appeal.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay declined to entertain the petition challenging two orders by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, stating that the petitioner must exhaust the alternate remedy of appeal. The court granted the petitioner liberty to appeal the impugned orders before the Appellate Authority within four weeks, without considering the limitation issue. The petitioner was also given the option to file a rectification application if reasonable grounds exist. No costs were awarded.