Tax Challenge Dismissed: Failure to Use Statutory Appeal Mechanism Under Section 107 of OGST Act Bars Extraordinary Writ Relief

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging tax demands, ruling that the petitioner failed to utilize the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of OGST Act. The Court held that the challenge was time-barred, the provisional registration was cancelled due to non-enrollment, and an alternative remedy existed, thus precluding extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petitioner seeks to quash the demand raised by the authority under Annexures-7 and 8 series, claiming payment made through statutory return form GSTR-3B under Annexure-5 series.

Details of the judgment:
The petitioner contended that the demand for 2017-18 was raised by the authority through DRC-07 dated 18.10.2019, rectified on 17.03.2020, and a demand for 2018-19 was raised via an assessment order dated 29.07.2021. The petitioner argued that he is not liable to pay. The petitioner also highlighted issues with the provisional ID for enrollment on the common portal used by the authority for assessment.

The Standing Counsel for CT & GST argued that the demands for 2017-18 and 2018-19 were challenged in 2023, which is barred by limitation under Section 107 of the OGST Act. It was emphasized that the petitioner failed to enroll on the common portal despite being allotted a provisional ID, leading to the assessment being made. The counsel contended that the assessment order is appealable, and the petitioner should have pursued that route instead of approaching the Court through a writ petition after a significant delay.

The Court noted that the petitioner challenged the demands raised by the authority under Annexure-7 and Annexure-8, claiming payment through Annexure-5 series. The Court highlighted that if the petitioner had indeed paid the demands, it was their responsibility to inform the authority of the error in the demand notices. Instead, the petitioner waited for three years before approaching the Court. The Court also pointed out the cancellation of the provisional certificate of registration due to the petitioner's failure to enroll on the common portal. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy exists.

---