Dismissal of Writ Petition challenging GST Order for Late Appeal

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the lapse of the appeal period. The court held that the assessing officer's error in choosing the legal provision did not amount to a lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner's partial compliance with the order by paying the tax dues indicated acceptance, making it difficult to contest the order in a writ proceeding.

---

---

Issues involved:
Assailed legality and validity of Order-in-Original under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Jurisdictional error or wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer. Challenge to the Order-in-Original in a writ proceeding.

Analysis:

1. Assailed legality and validity of Order-in-Original:
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2019, which confirmed a tax demand of Rs. 1,54,76,440 and imposed penalties under various sections of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the assessing officer should have proceeded under Section 62 for non-filing of returns, not Section 73. However, the court noted that the petitioner had partly complied with the order by paying the tax dues, indicating acceptance of the order. The court held that challenging part of the order after acceptance may not be maintainable.

2. Jurisdictional error:
The petitioner contended that the assessing officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 73 instead of Section 62. The court clarified that even if the officer erred in choosing the provision, it did not amount to a lack of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that acting under a wrong provision within jurisdiction is different from acting without jurisdiction. Therefore, the court was not convinced by the argument of jurisdictional error.

3. Challenge to the Order-in-Original in a writ proceeding:
The court highlighted that the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the order had expired, as the appeal period had lapsed. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the court emphasized that when the statutory period for appeal ends, resorting to Article 226 proceedings is impermissible. The court referred to a case where the High Court entertained a writ petition challenging an assessment order despite the appeal period lapsing, and the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition. Consequently, the court concluded that the challenge to the Order-in-Original could not be entertained in the present writ proceeding.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the challenge to the Order-in-Original could not be entertained due to the lapse of the appeal period. The court clarified that even if the assessing officer erred in choosing the legal provision, it did not amount to a lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner's partial compliance with the order by paying the tax dues indicated acceptance of the order, making it challenging to contest the order in a writ proceeding.

---