COVID-19 limitation orders preserved GST rectification relief, but expired appellate remedy barred writ challenge to assessment order.

Under the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation orders, a pending GST rectification application filed before lockdown could not be rejected as time-barred, and the department was required to decide the request and the unblocking of the electronic credit ledger within the time directed. The Court also held that a writ challenge to the assessment order was not maintainable where the statutory appellate remedy existed but had already become time-barred before the writ petition was filed. The note thus distinguishes between relief on the rectification and credit-ledger issues and the refusal to bypass the expired appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pending rectification application and the dispute regarding blocked input tax credit required a decision in light of the Supreme Court's orders extending and excluding limitation during the COVID-19 period. (ii) Whether the challenge to the assessment order under the goods and services tax law could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability and expiry of the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the pending rectification application and the dispute regarding blocked input tax credit required a decision in light of the Supreme Court's orders extending and excluding limitation during the COVID-19 period.

Analysis: The rectification request had been filed before the onset of the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court noted that the Supreme Court's suo motu orders extended and excluded limitation across proceedings and also covered periods relevant to institution and continuation of proceedings. In that backdrop, the authority could not decline to act on the rectification request on the premise that the six-month period had expired. The continued blocking of the electronic credit ledger for an extended period also warranted a decision by the department.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to decide the rectification application in accordance with law and to take a decision on the unblocking of the electronic credit ledger within a specified time.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the assessment order under the goods and services tax law could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability and expiry of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The Court held that the impugned order under the goods and services tax law could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction because the statutory appeal period had already expired before the writ petition was filed. The existence of an alternative remedy, coupled with the lapse of limitation for availing it, barred interference under writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the assessment order was not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of securing a decision on the rectification request and the blocked credit ledger issue, while the substantive challenge to the tax demand was left to the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: When limitation is extended by the Supreme Court's COVID-19 orders, an authority cannot refuse to decide a pending statutory rectification application on the ground that the prescribed period has expired, but writ interference will ordinarily not lie against a tax order when the statutory appellate remedy has already become time-barred.

---