GST recovery and unilateral tax liability fixation challenged for lack of hearing; writ dismissed for delay, instalments allowed u/s80.

A writ petition sought to stay and revoke recovery proceedings and to restrain unilateral fixation of GST liability on the ground that no proper hearing was afforded. The HC held the challenge to the 2019 assessment order was not maintainable because the assessee had not availed the statutory appellate remedy and had approached the writ court after nearly four years, warranting refusal of interference under Art. 226; consequently, the writ was dismissed. On the request for instalments, the HC noted the Commissioner's power under s. 80 CGST Act to permit up to 12 instalments and permitted the assessee to apply within seven days, directing the Commissioner to decide within seven days thereafter.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent, the proper calculation of tax liabilities, the provision of a fair hearing, the possibility of paying tax in installments, and the overall implementation of justice.

Recovery Proceedings:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief from recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent regarding GST assessment orders totaling more than five crores. The petitioner claimed that the assessing authority had miscalculated the tax, leading to the issuance of recovery notices. However, the assessment order was passed in 2019, and the petitioner did not challenge it within a reasonable time. The court found the writ petition not maintainable against an assessment order from four years prior and dismissed it.

Payment in Installments:
Despite dismissing the writ petition, the court acknowledged the petitioner's request for installment payments for the tax arrears. Referring to Section 80 of the CGST Act, the court mentioned that the Commissioner has the authority to grant up to 12 installments for the payment of arrears of tax. The petitioner was advised to approach the Commissioner within seven days to request installment payments, and the Commissioner was directed to decide on the application within another seven days.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, but the court allowed for the continuation of any interim orders until the Commissioner made a decision on the petitioner's request for installment payments. The judgment emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and timely challenges to assessment orders, while also recognizing the possibility of granting relief through installment payment options as provided by the law.

---