Tax Liability Challenge Rejected: Appellant Directed to Pursue Statutory Remedy and Present Arguments Before Appellate Authority

HC dismissed writ appeal challenging tax liability order, directing appellant to pursue alternate statutory remedy. The court emphasized that the appellant can raise all jurisdictional and procedural contentions before the appellate authority, which must consider the appeal promptly and address the substantive issues raised regarding the tax assessment under Section 73 of CGST/SGST Act.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the authorities in issuing Ext.P4 order under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act imposing liability on the petitioner for a specific period, the extension of time period for issuance of the order, and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge leading to the filing of a statutory appeal.

Jurisdiction of Authorities:
The unsuccessful writ petitioner appealed against the dismissal of his writ petition challenging the Ext.P4 order imposing a liability of Rs.9,70,596 for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The appellant argued that the proceedings leading to the order were without jurisdiction as the time period for completion of proceedings for the financial year 2017-2018 had been extended up to 30.09.2023. The appellant contended that unless the show cause notice was issued within the specified time, the entire proceedings would be without jurisdiction.

Dismissal of Writ Petition:
The learned single Judge did not accept the petitioner's contention that the impugned orders were issued without jurisdiction. The petitioner then sought time to avail the alternate remedy against Ext.P4 order and filed a statutory appeal as directed by the learned single Judge. The appellant's counsel reiterated the contentions from the writ petition, but since the appellant had already filed the statutory appeal as an alternate remedy, the court declined to admit the writ appeal. The court emphasized that the dismissal of the writ petition did not prejudice the appellant's ability to raise contentions before the appellate authority.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the appellant to raise all contentions against Ext.P4 notice before the appellate authority. The court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal promptly and pass orders after addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner. The court clarified that the appellant was free to present all available contentions under the law before the appellate authority for further consideration and resolution.

---