2025 (8) TMI 987 - HC - GST

Writ petition dismissed for 11-month delay; no satisfactory excuse, petitioner must pursue statutory GST remedies and factual disputes

Abhinandan Sahoo Versus Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and others.

Abhinandan Sahoo Versus Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and others. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1. Whether notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Act extending the limitation period for passing orders under Section 73 can be challenged in writ jurisdiction as being beyond the power conferred by the statute. 1.2. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in respect of an assessment/order under Section 73 where an effective statutory remedy and adjudicatory mechanism exists. 1.3. Whether inordinate delay and laches (approximately eleven months) in approaching the High Court, without satisfactory explanation, disentitles the petitioner to equitable relief by way of writ against an order passed under Section 73. 1.4. Whether a candid admission by the petitioner of a clerical mistake concerning taxability (misreporting of exempt supplies as taxable) affects the appropriateness of entertaining a writ petition directed to quash an assessment/order under Section 73. 1.5. Ancillary: Whether factual disputes arising from scrutiny of GST returns and admissions of mistakes are matters for writ adjudication or for fact-finding authorities under the GST Act and Rules. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1. Issue 1 - Validity of notifications under Section 168A extending limitation for Section 73 orders Legal framework: 2.1.1. Section 73 prescribes the limitation for passing recovery orders for tax not paid or short paid. Section 168A authorises the Government to extend limitation periods by notification. Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): 2.1.2. The Court acknowledges established principles permitting challenge to executive action where it transgresses statutory power but, on facts, did not adjudicate the constitutional vires of the notifications; rather declined writ relief for other reasons. Precedents on availability of Article 226 where statutory remedy exists were applied to refuse intervention. Interpretation and reasoning: 2.1.3. The petitioner sought to impugn the notifications as ultra vires. The Court noted the plea but did not reach the merits of the vires contention because other threshold bars (delay, alternative remedy, factual admission) made exercise of writ jurisdiction inappropriate. The Court therefore treated the vires issue as not ripe for adjudication in the writ forum at this stage. Ratio vs. Obiter: 2.1.4. Ratio: The decision does not establish a definitive ruling on the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A; it is a procedural disposition declining writ relief on other grounds. Any remarks regarding the notifications are obiter in the context of refusal to entertain the petition. Conclusion: 2.1.5. The Court did not decide the legal validity of the notifications under Section 168A; the petition attacking them was dismissed on discretionary grounds without adjudication of that substantive issue. 2.2. Issue 2 - Appropriateness of writ jurisdiction where alternative statutory remedy/tribunal exists Legal framework: 2.2.1. Article 226 confers discretionary writ jurisdiction; established principle that writ remedy is extraordinary and may be refused if adequate alternative statutory remedies exist or statutory mechanism provides redressal. Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): 2.2.2. The Court applied well-settled principles that where a statutory forum is available for adjudication of disputes under the relevant Act, writ relief is ordinarily not granted, except in exceptional circumstances (breach of natural justice, mala fide action, or where statute is flagrantly violated). Precedents articulating self-imposed restrictions on Article 226 were followed. Interpretation and reasoning: 2.2.3. The Court held that the issues raised (validity of notifications, correctness of assessment under Section 73) fall squarely within the domain of authorities empowered under the GST Act and Rules; thus the statutory adjudicatory process is the appropriate forum. No exceptional circumstance was shown to displace the rule of alternative remedy. Ratio vs. Obiter: 2.2.4. Ratio: Where effective alternative remedy/statutory mechanism exists and no compelling exception is established, the High Court should ordinarily refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction to determine substantive disputes under the statute. Conclusion: 2.2.5. The petition was not entertainable on the ground that the petitioner had effective alternative remedies and failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting bypass of statutory forums. 2.3. Issue 3 - Effect of inordinate delay and laches on entitlement to writ relief Legal framework: 2.3.1. The doctrine of laches/delay is an equitable principle informing the High Court's discretion under Article 226; unexplained/inordinate delay and lack of promptness may disentitle a litigant to relief notwithstanding possible illegality in the impugned action. Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): 2.3.2. The Court relied upon established jurisprudence that delay and laches are material to exercise of discretionary writ relief. Prior authorities holding that writ courts should not ordinarily assist the tardy or indolent were followed. Interpretation and reasoning: 2.3.3. The Court found an unexplained delay of about eleven months between the impugned order and initiating writ proceedings. No plausible explanation was furnished. The petitioner's lack of prompt action, coupled with the availability of statutory remedies, weighed heavily against entertaining the petition. The Court invoked equitable maxims and precedent to support refusal of writ relief on this ground. Ratio vs. Obiter: 2.3.4. Ratio: Inordinate and unexplained delay in seeking extraordinary writ relief is a valid ground for refusal of relief; delay undermines equity and may prejudice third parties or statutory processes. Conclusion: 2.3.5. The petition was dismissed on the basis of inordinate delay and laches; the Court exercised its discretion not to remedy alleged illegality because of the unexplained delay in invoking writ jurisdiction. 2.4. Issue 4 - Impact of petitioner's admission of clerical mistake (misreporting exempt supplies) on suitability of writ relief Legal framework: 2.4.1. Factual admissions and disputes over return reconciliations are generally matters for adjudication by fact-finding authorities under the statutory scheme (assessment, show-cause, opportunity to be heard). Writ courts are reluctant to decide contested factual questions better resolved by the designated adjudicatory forum. Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): 2.4.2. The Court followed the settled approach that factual controversies and admissions bearing upon liability should ordinarily be evaluated by the statutory fact-finders rather than in writ proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: 2.4.3. The petitioner candidly admitted a clerical mistake that exempt supplies were wrongly reported as taxable in returns. Given this admission, the Court concluded that the matter required scrutiny and appreciation of evidence by the authorities vested with power under the GST Act, and was not suited for resolution in writ jurisdiction. Ratio vs. Obiter: 2.4.4. Ratio: Where the petitioner admits facts giving rise to liability or where disputes are essentially factual and investigative, writ relief is inappropriate; those issues should be adjudicated by the competent statutory authorities. Conclusion: 2.4.5. The admission of clerical mistake militated against entertaining the writ; the Court directed that factual adjudication be pursued before the competent authority under the GST Act. 2.5. Issue 5 - Disposition and relief 2.5.1. Having found the petition liable to be dismissed on grounds of alternative remedy, inordinate delay/laches, and the petitioner's admission of clerical mistake (factual nature of dispute), the Court declined to adjudicate the substantive vires of the notifications and dismissed the writ petition along with pending interlocutory applications. 2.5.2. The Court observed that the petitioner remained free to pursue available remedies before the competent authority under the GST Act and Rules and that the issues could be agitated before those fora.