2024 (2) TMI 899 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment orders passed for the years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and for the period April, 2023 to July, 2023 - invocation of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of statutory remedy of appeal - invocation of Extraordinary Jurisdiction - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is seen from the grounds that the assessment orders passed have been challenged as without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice; but bland assertions made without any substantiation thereof. The petitioner has also made averments against the inspection conducted alleging that the reasons to believe in the authorization of 12.08.2023 are mere reproduction of the provisions of Section 67(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Immediately, it is to be noticed that the authorization for inspection through produced as Annexure-7, it has not been challenged in the relief portion. Assessment made on various grounds of reversal of Input Tax Credit of purchase returns having not been effected - HELD THAT - There being no legal grounds for demand, computation of demand having not been properly substantiated, mismatch of outward supply figures in the return for outward supplies vis-avis figures in the e-way bill, utilization of Input Tax Credit on account of GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch and the penalty imposed on failure to furnish consumption details; all of which are matters which could be challenged in appeal. Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - There is no lack of jurisdiction alleged on the Assessing Officer to proceed for assessment nor is it specifically pleaded that in the course of assessment the Assessing Officer has travelled beyond his jurisdiction. There are no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the assessment orders passed at this stage. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction - It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed within the time provided for appeal; which alone cannot be a reason to bypass the appellate remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction - HELD THAT - It is seen that the orders for Assessment Years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 (Annexure 1 to 5) were passed on 31.10.2023. With respect to the said orders, the appeal time stands expired today. The petitioner has still a month s time to file an appeal with an application for condonation of delay. With respect to Annexure-6 order, which is for the period April 2023 to July, 2023, the order was passed on 30.11.2023, which can be challenged within one month without a delay condonation application and even within a month thereafter, with proper explanation for the delay. The writ petition having been filed within the period provided for appeal, we deem it fit to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal filed against Annexures 1 to 5, on merits, if it is filed within five weeks from today. In so far as the other order, (Annexure-6) is concerned, the petitioner has still one month time to file an appeal, as provided under the BGST Act and then again a further month, with application to condone delay. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenging assessment orders for multiple years and periods, invoking Article 226 despite the availability of statutory appeal remedy.

Summary:
The High Court considered the petitioner's challenge to assessment orders for various years and periods, despite the availability of statutory appeal remedy. The Court reiterated the principles governing the jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that the extraordinary remedy of writ is discretionary and should be invoked only in specific circumstances. The petitioner's claims of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice were found to be unsubstantiated, with various grounds for challenge being deemed appealable matters. The Court noted that each assessment order gives rise to a separate cause of action, and as such, declined to interfere with the assessment orders at that stage. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal process, with specific timelines provided for filing appeals against the assessment orders. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, with the petitioner granted the opportunity to file appeals within the specified timeframes.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, highlighting the issues involved and the Court's reasoning behind its decision.