Writ petition dismissed for challenging GST assessment without filing statutory appeal under Section 107 within limitation period

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order dated 22.03.2023 levying tax, interest and penalty on royalty. The petitioner failed to file statutory appeal under Section 107 of RGST/CGST Act within the prescribed limitation period or extended period for condonation of delay. The petitioner was given proper hearing opportunity through show cause notice but consciously chose not to appeal, waiting for limitation period to expire before approaching HC. Relying on SC precedent in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the HC held that writ petition challenging assessment order solely on ground that statutory appeal remedy was time-barred is not maintainable and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues involved:
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, as well as the order directing deposit of tax liability, interest, and penalty.

Comprehensive details:

Issue 1: Challenge to show cause notice and order
The petitioner questioned the show cause notice and order directing payment of Rs. 9,19,018/- towards service tax on royalty, interest, and penalty. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed period or seek condonation of delay, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar case.

Issue 2: Precedent from Glaxo Smith Kline case
The Supreme Court considered a case involving failure to file an appeal within the statutory period, leading to a writ petition seeking to quash the assessment order. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in such circumstances, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory appeal timelines.

Issue 3: Maintainability of writ petition
In the present case, the petitioner did not file an appeal against the tax determination order but directly approached the Court through a writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not availing the statutory appeal remedy, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition based on the precedent set by the Glaxo Smith Kline case.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner did not opt for the statutory appeal route, following the precedent established by the Glaxo Smith Kline case. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to appeal timelines and utilizing statutory remedies in tax matters.

---