Writ petition dismissed for not filing statutory appeal under Section 107 within limitation period

Rajasthan HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a tax assessment order under RGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to file statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 and offered no explanation for non-filing. Following SC precedent in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when statutory appellate remedy is deliberately not pursued within time limits. The petition was deemed non-maintainable as the petitioner consciously chose not to appeal and waited for limitation period to expire.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and order under RGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 for financial year 2018-19. Maintainability of writ petition due to failure to file appeal within statutory period.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and an order issued under the RGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2018-19. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed period as per Section 107 of the Acts, rendering the writ petition not maintainable. Citing the case of "Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited," (2020) 19 SCC 681, the respondents contended that failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period precludes the maintainability of the writ petition.

In the case of "Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited," the Supreme Court considered a similar scenario where the High Court entertained a challenge to an assessment order despite the statutory remedy of appeal being foreclosed due to delay. The Court held that the appeal process is a creation of statute, and failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period does not amount to a violation of fundamental or statutory rights. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and dismissed the writ petition in that case.

The Court noted that the petitioner in the present case did not file an appeal against the order under the Acts, 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 availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Acts. Therefore, the Court found that the petitioner consciously chose not to pursue the appeal process within the specified timelines and waited until the limitation period had expired.

Based on the principles established in the "Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited" case and the failure of the petitioner to file an appeal, the Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory appeal timelines and the consequences of not availing the statutory remedy provided under the Acts.

---