Writ petition dismissed as petitioner failed to file statutory appeal within limitation period under Section 107

HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax, interest and penalty determination under RGST/CGST Act. Petitioner failed to file statutory appeal within prescribed limitation period under Section 107 or maximum condonable period thereafter. Court held petitioner received show cause notice and hearing opportunity but consciously chose not to appeal, allowing assessment order to become final. Following SC precedent in Glaxo Smith Kline case, writ petition was not maintainable as alternative statutory remedy was available but not pursued.

---

---

Issues:
The correctness and validity of show cause notice u/s 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for financial year 2018-19, and the order directing deposit of service tax on royalty, interest, and penalty.

Issue 1: Challenge to Show Cause Notice and Order:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice and order issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of the RGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2018-19, directing the deposit of Rs. 2,72,926 towards service tax on royalty, interest, and penalty. The petitioner raised multiple grounds to contest the notice and order. However, it was pointed out that the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed period or seek condonation for delay as allowed by law. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the failure to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal within the specified time limits.

Issue 2: Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited was referenced to determine the maintainability of the writ petition. In that case, the Supreme Court held that failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time renders a writ petition not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the appeal process is a creation of statute and must be adhered to within the specified time frame. Detailed considerations were made regarding the delay in filing the appeal, awareness of the assessment order, and explanations provided by the respondent. It was concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable in such circumstances.

Issue 3: Failure to File Appeal:
The petitioner in the present case did not file an appeal challenging the order passed in the assessment proceedings, allowing it to become final. Despite being issued a show cause notice and given an opportunity to be heard, the petitioner did not provide a plausible explanation for not pursuing the statutory appeal remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner consciously chose not to appeal within the prescribed time limits, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition based on the precedent set by the Glaxo Smith Kline case.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the show cause notice and order directing the deposit of service tax was dismissed by the Court due to the petitioner's failure to file an appeal within the statutory time limits, as required by the RGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017.

---