2025 (7) TMI 1248 - HC - GST

GST assessment challenge dismissed for inexplicable three-year delay beyond Section 107 condonable period

M/s. Bikash Panigrahi Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax CT and Goods and Services Tax, Additional Commissioner, State Tax Bargarh Circle, Sambalpur, Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Bargarh Jurisdiction

M/s. Bikash Panigrahi Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax CT and Goods and Services Tax, Additional Commissioner, State Tax Bargarh Circle, Sambalpur, ... ISSUES: Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order under Section 74 of the GST Act is maintainable when statutory appeal remedies under Section 107 of the GST Act are available.Whether delay in filing a writ petition beyond the condonable period prescribed under the GST Act can be excused in absence of sufficient explanation.Whether service of notice or order by making it available on the common GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the GST Act.Whether factual disputes regarding suppression or fraud can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The writ petition challenging the assessment order under Section 74 of the GST Act is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, which includes a provision for condonation of delay up to thirty days.Delay beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute cannot be excused without sufficient reason; the Court held that the writ petition filed after more than three years from the assessment order is barred by limitation and not entertainable.Service of notice or order by making it available on the common GST portal is deemed valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, and lack of physical communication does not vitiate service.Factual disputes such as whether suppression or fraud occurred cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, as the statutory appellate authority is empowered to investigate facts and come to independent findings. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, emphasizing the exclusive remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and the prescribed limitation periods therein.The Court relied on precedent establishing that the existence of an alternative remedy ordinarily precludes writ jurisdiction unless illegality or unconstitutionality is manifest, and that delay in approaching the Court without explanation disentitles the petitioner from relief.Reference was made to authoritative decisions interpreting limitation and condonation provisions under other statutes with similar strict timelines, such as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, underscoring that appellate authorities lack jurisdiction to condone delay beyond statutory limits.The Court noted the legislative intent behind Section 169 of the GST Act, which explicitly provides that service by uploading on the common portal is valid, thereby negating claims of non-communication when orders are available online.The Court recognized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and must be exercised with self-restraint, especially where delay and laches are attributable to the petitioner, and where statutory remedies are available and effective.