Tax Assessment Order Upheld: Failure to Respond and Late Appeal Leads to Dismissal of Writ Petition

HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax assessment order. Despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to respond and filed an appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period. The court emphasized adherence to statutory timelines and held that no extension could be granted under Article 226, rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the ex parte assessment order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The writ petition challenges an assessment order and appeal rejection on the ground of limitation, with the contention that the assessment order was ex parte.

Assessment Order and Appeal Rejection:
The State issued notices and provided opportunities for the assessee to explain excess input tax claimed, which the assessee failed to utilize. The assessee claimed input tax credit under CGST and SGST Acts, but the GSTR-2A from the supplier showed a lower credit amount. Despite multiple reminders and a show-cause notice, the petitioner did not respond, leading to the ex parte order under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of over a month.

Limitation Period for Filing Appeal:
The assessment order was dated 10.12.2021, but the appeal was filed on 10.07.2022, well beyond the stipulated time frame. The Supreme Court's directive regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic situation was discussed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specified timelines for filing appeals.

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's stance on interference with appellable orders and the discretionary nature of the writ remedy. It was emphasized that the High Court could intervene only in specific circumstances, such as breaches of natural justice, fundamental rights infringement, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularities. In this case, no such grounds were raised against the impugned order.

Dismissal of Writ Petition:
Given the petitioner's failure to avail statutory remedies, specifically the appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed timelines, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The judgment reiterated the principle that when a specific period for delay condonation is provided, no extension can be granted by the Appellate Authority or the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's lack of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or abuse of the court's process further supported the dismissal of the petition.

---