Writ petition dismissed for exceeding limitation period by two years under Section 74 OGST Act 2017

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the OGST Act, 2017. The petition was filed on 18.04.2024 against an order dated 07.12.2021, exceeding the limitation period by over two years. The petitioner failed to exhaust alternative remedies by not filing a statutory appeal. The court held that availability of the order on the common portal constituted deemed service, rejecting the petitioner's argument regarding lack of physical service. The petition was dismissed as non-maintainable due to delay and non-exhaustion of alternative remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Allegation of incorrect filing of returns by the petitioner.
3. Availability of alternative remedy through appeal.
4. Validity of the writ petition filed after the limitation period.
5. Service of order through the common portal.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding payment of Rs. 1,25,240.00 for alleged discrepancies in filing returns. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without verifying the returns and violated the principle of natural justice. The petitioner explained the filing discrepancy due to the timing of payment receipt and subsequent return filing. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not exhaust the statutory remedy of filing an appeal. The court noted that the writ petition was filed after the limitation period and without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, making it not entertainable.

The court referred to the decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The court highlighted the principle that the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition filed after the statutory limitation period for appeal has expired. Additionally, the court clarified that service of the order through the common portal, as per Section 169 (1) (d) of the OGST Act, 2017, is deemed sufficient notification to the petitioner. Relying on these principles, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed legal procedures.

In conclusion, the court found that the petitioner's failure to file a statutory appeal within the limitation period and the delayed filing of the writ petition rendered it not maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

---