TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Maintainability of writ challenging GST assessment when appeal u/s73 exists - writ dismissed; appeal required; notifications challenge deferred</h1> Dominant issue: maintainability of writ petition in light of alternative remedy by appeal against the assessment order under s.73 of the CGST/MGST Act. ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the CGST Act/MGST Act - challenge to N/N. 4 of 2018 dated 25 January 2018 and N/N. 56 of 2023 dated 28 December 2023 - HELD THAT:- It would only be appropriate if the Petitioners are relegated to instituting an Appeal against the order of 26 June 2024. In such Appeal, the Petitioners will be entitled to raise all grounds on merits. If the Appeal succeeds on merits, then, possibly, there would be no occasion to challenge the Notification Nos. 4 of 2018 and 56 of 2023. However, if the Appeal fails, the Petitioners can be reserved liberty to challenge the N/Ns. 4 of 2018 and 56 of 2023. This Petition is disposed off by relegating the Petitioners, if the Petitioners so desire, to avail of the alternate remedy of Appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024. Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 26 June 2024 should be relegated to the alternate remedy of an appeal; (ii) Whether the Appellate Authority should be directed to entertain the appeal on merits without taking objection to limitation, subject to compliance with prescribed formalities including pre-deposit.Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be relegated to an appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024.Analysis: The Court examined the petitioners' challenge to the impugned order and noted that substantive grounds on merits can be raised before the Appellate Authority. The Court considered the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST framework and the appropriateness of exercising writ jurisdiction when an efficacious appellate remedy exists.Conclusion: The petition is relegated to the alternate remedy of an appeal; the petitioners are directed to file an appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024 if they so desire.Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Authority should be requested to entertain the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated time and after completing prescribed formalities including pre-deposit.Analysis: The Court recorded that the petition was instituted within the period of limitation for filing an appeal and that the petitioners had bona fide pursued the matter. Considering these facts, the Court exercised its supervisory discretion to grant limited relief by permitting the appeal to be entertained on merits if filed within the time directed and after complying with legal formalities.Conclusion: The Appellate Authority is requested to entertain the appeal on merits and in accordance with law but without adverting to the issue of limitation, provided the appeal is filed within six weeks and statutory formalities including pre-deposit are complied with.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioners to file an appeal within six weeks with liberty that the Appellate Authority will hear the appeal on merits without raising limitation, and the petitioners retain liberty to challenge the notifications if the appeal fails.Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists and the petitioners have bona fide pursued relief within the limitation period, the Court may relegated the matter to appeal and, in appropriate circumstances, direct the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal on merits without raising limitation subject to compliance with prescribed formalities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
