2023 (9) TMI 42 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - Validity of assessment order - computation of the turn over and the determination of the taxable turnover and the tax payable - violation of principles of natural justice - 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. There is no jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or abuse of process of law averred or argued by the petitioner in the above writ petition. From the records produced, it is clear that an inspection was conducted in the premises of the assesse and the same was also found locked - there is no ground stated in the writ petition which would enable invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST), challenges the assessment order determining tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST), along with interest and penalty. The petitioner failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed time frame.

Judgment Details:

1. Failure to Avail Statutory Remedies:
The petitioner did not utilize the appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the stipulated period. The judgment emphasizes that approaching the High Court under Article 226 without availing the alternate remedy requires strong grounds or exceptional circumstances. The court clarified that the discretionary nature of the writ remedy allows refusal if an effective remedy exists elsewhere. The High Court may intervene only in cases of breach of natural justice, jurisdictional errors, or fundamental rights violations, none of which were substantiated by the petitioner.

2. Jurisdictional Error and Violation of Principles:
The court noted the absence of jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice principles, or abuse of legal processes in the petitioner's case. The assessment conducted in the absence of the assessee due to locked premises was deemed valid, especially when the stock location was not communicated to tax authorities. The petitioner's general claim of constitutional rights violation under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A lacked substantiation, failing to warrant extraordinary relief under Article 226.

3. Dismissal of Writ Petition:
Given the lack of grounds for invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the court found no basis to entertain the writ petition and subsequently dismissed it. The judgment reiterated the legal principle that specific timeframes for delay condonation cannot be extended by the Appellate Authority or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief through writ jurisdiction and highlights the stringent criteria for High Court intervention in tax assessment matters.