2023 (12) TMI 941 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Validity of assessment order - rejection of appeal on the ground of limitation - It is urged that the assessment order itself was an ex parte order - 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. The petitioner by his own failure has not availed the appellate remedy and in that circumstance, there can be no invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - there is no jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or abuse of process of Court averred or argued by the petitioner in the above writ petition. The gross delay also stands against the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The writ petition challenges an assessment order and appeal rejection on the ground of limitation, with the contention that the assessment order was ex parte.

Assessment Order and Appeal Rejection:
The State issued notices and provided opportunities for the assessee to explain excess input tax claimed, which the assessee failed to utilize. The assessee claimed input tax credit under CGST and SGST Acts, but the GSTR-2A from the supplier showed a lower credit amount. Despite multiple reminders and a show-cause notice, the petitioner did not respond, leading to the ex parte order under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of over a month.

Limitation Period for Filing Appeal:
The assessment order was dated 10.12.2021, but the appeal was filed on 10.07.2022, well beyond the stipulated time frame. The Supreme Court's directive regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic situation was discussed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specified timelines for filing appeals.

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's stance on interference with appellable orders and the discretionary nature of the writ remedy. It was emphasized that the High Court could intervene only in specific circumstances, such as breaches of natural justice, fundamental rights infringement, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularities. In this case, no such grounds were raised against the impugned order.

Dismissal of Writ Petition:
Given the petitioner's failure to avail statutory remedies, specifically the appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed timelines, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The judgment reiterated the principle that when a specific period for delay condonation is provided, no extension can be granted by the Appellate Authority or the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's lack of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or abuse of the court's process further supported the dismissal of the petition.