2023 (4) TMI 904 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - time period for completion of proceedings is three years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, relates - HELD THAT - As the appellant had sought for availing the alternate remedy and has, in fact, availed it, we are not inclined to admit this writ appeal and hear the contentions of the appellant on merits. Learned Counsel for the appellant raises an apprehension that since the writ petition was dismissed, he would be prejudiced in the appeal before the statutory authority as it will be taken that his contentions were rejected by this Court - the said apprehension to be without any basis as the learned single Judge has only considered the contentions and had entered findings only for the purpose of declining jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for entertaining the writ petition and nothing more. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the authorities in issuing Ext.P4 order under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act imposing liability on the petitioner for a specific period, the extension of time period for issuance of the order, and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge leading to the filing of a statutory appeal.

Jurisdiction of Authorities:
The unsuccessful writ petitioner appealed against the dismissal of his writ petition challenging the Ext.P4 order imposing a liability of Rs.9,70,596 for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The appellant argued that the proceedings leading to the order were without jurisdiction as the time period for completion of proceedings for the financial year 2017-2018 had been extended up to 30.09.2023. The appellant contended that unless the show cause notice was issued within the specified time, the entire proceedings would be without jurisdiction.

Dismissal of Writ Petition:
The learned single Judge did not accept the petitioner's contention that the impugned orders were issued without jurisdiction. The petitioner then sought time to avail the alternate remedy against Ext.P4 order and filed a statutory appeal as directed by the learned single Judge. The appellant's counsel reiterated the contentions from the writ petition, but since the appellant had already filed the statutory appeal as an alternate remedy, the court declined to admit the writ appeal. The court emphasized that the dismissal of the writ petition did not prejudice the appellant's ability to raise contentions before the appellate authority.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the appellant to raise all contentions against Ext.P4 notice before the appellate authority. The court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal promptly and pass orders after addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner. The court clarified that the appellant was free to present all available contentions under the law before the appellate authority for further consideration and resolution.