2024 (4) TMI 1296 - HC - GST

Writ Petition Dismissed for Failing to File Statutory Appeal Within Limitation Under Section 107 RGST/CGST Act

M/s Thekedar Pankaj Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan, Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, Assistant Commissioner, Ward No. II, Rajasthan.

M/s Thekedar Pankaj Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan, Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, Assistant Commissioner, Ward No. II, Rajasthan. - 2024:RJ ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge an order passed under Section 74 of the RGST Act, 2017 / CGST Act, 2017 when no statutory appeal has been filed within the prescribed period or condoned delay. Whether failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period bars the High Court from entertaining a writ petition challenging the assessment order. Whether the principles established by the Supreme Court in the precedent case regarding limitation and maintainability of writ petitions against tax assessment orders apply to the facts of the present case. Whether the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing or natural justice in the issuance of the show cause notice and passing of the order under Section 74. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of writ petition challenging assessment order without filing statutory appeal - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017 / CGST Act, 2017 prescribes a limitation period for filing appeals against orders passed by the tax authorities. The Supreme Court's ruling in the precedent case establishes that the remedy of appeal is a creature of statute and must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the statutory remedy of appeal is mandatory and exclusive for challenging assessment orders. If an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time or the condonation of delay is not granted, the order attains finality. The High Court ordinarily should not entertain a writ petition challenging such an order merely because the appeal period has lapsed. - Key evidence and findings: The petitioner did not file any appeal against the order dated 13.03.2023 within the limitation period or seek condonation of delay. The petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice and order, and no denial of knowledge or opportunity was demonstrated. - Application of law to facts: Since the petitioner consciously abstained from filing the statutory appeal and allowed the order to become final, the writ petition challenging the assessment order is not maintainable under Article 226. - Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's grounds challenging the validity of the show cause notice and order were considered; however, the Court found that lack of appeal within the statutory time barred the writ petition. The Court relied on the precedent to reject the contention that the writ petition could be entertained despite non-exhaustion of statutory remedies. - Conclusions: The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed limitation period or obtain condonation of delay. Issue 2: Applicability of Supreme Court precedent on limitation and writ jurisdiction - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court's decision in the precedent case clarified that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions challenging assessment orders if the statutory appeal remedy is foreclosed by limitation. The decision analyzed facts where the assessee delayed filing appeal and sought writ relief instead. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reproduced detailed reasoning from the precedent, highlighting that the remedy of appeal is statutory and cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction. The absence of sufficient cause for delay and failure to file appeal within the maximum extended period precludes writ relief. - Key evidence and findings: The precedent case showed that the assessee was served with the assessment order, failed to file timely appeal, made belated attempts without substantiation, and the appellate authority rejected the appeal on delay grounds. The High Court's indulgence was reversed by the Supreme Court. - Application of law to facts: The present case is analogous: the petitioner was served with the show cause notice and order, did not file appeal within limitation, and offered no plausible explanation for delay. Therefore, the precedent applies squarely to bar writ jurisdiction. - Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner did not allege denial of natural justice or statutory violation that could justify writ jurisdiction. The Court noted absence of any explanation for non-filing of appeal and rejected any attempt to circumvent statutory remedy. - Conclusions: The precedent decisively supports dismissal of the writ petition for non-maintainability due to failure to exhaust statutory appeal remedy within limitation. Issue 3: Whether denial of opportunity of hearing or violation of natural justice occurred - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice require that a show cause notice be issued and the affected party be given opportunity to be heard before passing an adverse order. The petitioner's challenge included grounds related to validity of notice and order. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and had opportunity to respond before the order was passed. There was no allegation or evidence of denial of hearing or breach of natural justice. - Key evidence and findings: The record showed issuance of notice dated 29.10.2022 and subsequent order dated 13.03.2023. The petitioner admitted receipt of notice and did not claim procedural irregularity. - Application of law to facts: No procedural infirmity was found that would vitiate the order and justify bypassing statutory appeal remedy. - Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's grounds on validity of notice and order were considered but found insufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction in absence of appeal. - Conclusions: No violation of natural justice or denial of hearing occurred; thus, no exception to the rule of exhausting statutory appeal arises.