Tax Assessment Challenge Rejected: Procedural Lapses and Missed Timelines Block Judicial Review Under Section 107

HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax assessment order. The appeal was filed beyond permissible timelines under Section 107 of BGST Act, lacking necessary documentation and satisfactory reasons for delay. Court found no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing importance of exhausting alternate remedies within stipulated timeframes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge against assessment order due to delayed appeal, Ex parte assessment order, Refund claim of excess tax paid, Delay condonation under Section 107 of BGST Act, Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Availability of alternate remedies, Interference with appellate orders, Constitutionality of Tribunal under BGST Act, Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Delayed Appeal and Ex Parte Assessment Order:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the year 2019-2020, alleging it was ex parte and returns could not be uploaded due to lack of familiarity with BGST Act procedures. The appellate order cited Section 107 of the BGST Act, allowing appeals within three months and condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons within one month. Despite the pandemic-related extension granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed the appeal on 09.12.2022, well beyond the permissible timelines.

Refund Claim and Rejection of Appeal:
The petitioner claimed an excess tax payment and sought a refund. However, the appeal filed on 09.12.2022 did not include a certified copy of the assessment order as required within seven days. Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to provide the necessary documentation, leading to the rejection of the appeal on grounds of lack of interest and significant delay.

Invocation of Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226:
The court found no basis to invoke Article 226, emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternate remedies within stipulated timeframes. The petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing available avenues precluded the court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Interference with Appellate Orders and Tribunal Constitutionality:
The petitioner's reliance on a judgment interfering with an ex-parte assessment order was deemed inapplicable since no notice violation was claimed. The absence of a constituted Tribunal under the BGST Act further weakened the petitioner's argument, as the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal based on delay, limiting the grounds for a second appeal.

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court referred to established principles regarding the exercise of discretion under Article 226, highlighting the need for strong grounds or breaches of natural justice to warrant interference. Without specific pleas against the impugned order, the court dismissed the writ petition, underscoring the discretionary nature of Article 226 remedies.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to meet the necessary criteria for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals and diligent pursuit of available remedies in challenging assessment orders under the BGST Act.

---