Writ petitions against GST assessment orders dismissed, petitioners must exhaust Section 107 appellate remedy first

The Madras HC dismissed writ petitions challenging GST assessment orders, ruling that petitioners must exhaust the alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act before approaching the court. The petitioners lost their opportunity for deemed withdrawal under Section 62(2) by failing to file returns within 30 days. The court noted that writ jurisdiction is available only in cases of natural justice violations, statutory breaches, or jurisdictional issues. Despite COVID-19 pandemic causing delays and Supreme Court extending limitation periods, the HC directed petitioners to pursue appeals before the Appellate Authority, disposing of the petitions while granting liberty to file appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders of assessment under Section 62(1) of the GST Act, missed opportunity to file return within 30 days, appeal under Section 107, Bank accounts attachment, extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226, compliance with Section 107(6) for appeal, lifting of Bank attachment order, Covid-19 situation affecting appeal filing, alternative appellate remedy under Section 107.

Analysis:
1. Impugned Orders of Assessment: The writ petitions challenged the assessment orders dated 10.01.2020 made under Section 62(1) of the GST Act. The petitioner failed to file the return within 30 days as provided under Section 62(2), resulting in the orders becoming final. The remedy under Section 62(2) for deemed withdrawal was lost due to the delay in filing the return.

2. Availability of Appeal under Section 107: The respondent contended that the petitioner could file an appeal under Section 107, complying with the pre-deposit conditions. The Court emphasized that when an appeal remedy is available under Section 107, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked unless there is a violation of natural justice, statutory provisions, or lack of jurisdiction.

3. Bank Accounts Attachment: The petitioner's bank accounts were attached pursuant to the impugned orders, affecting the business operations. The petitioner sought the lifting of the bank attachment order as an interim relief to comply with the provisions of Section 107 for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

4. Covid-19 Situation and Appeal Filing: Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, the petitioner faced challenges in approaching the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time. The Court acknowledged the pandemic situation and extended the time for filing appeals, emphasizing compliance with Section 107(6) for appeal consideration.

5. Court's Orders: The Court rejected the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to file appeals before the Appellate Authority within two weeks, complying with Section 107(6). The Court allowed the petitioner to seek relief under Section 107(7) for lifting the bank attachment order, considering the pandemic's impact on appeal filing. The orders were issued in light of the exceptional circumstances due to the pandemic, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions for appeal consideration.

---