Statutory appeal against GST rectification orders is available, and writ review will not bypass the alternate remedy.
A writ challenge to an assessment-related order was found improper where the assessee had already pursued the statutory rectification route under the Tamil Nadu GST Act and the challenge was also time-barred. The text states that Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass the statutory remedy. At the same time, Section 107 was read broadly to treat a rectification order as appealable, and delay in approaching the appellate forum was condoned so the statutory appeal could be pursued, subject to the Act's other requirements.
Issues: (i) whether the writ challenge to the assessment-related order was not maintainable in view of the statutory rectification route and limitation; (ii) whether the rectification order under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was amenable to appeal under Section 107 of the same Act, and whether delay in approaching the appellate forum deserved condonation.
Issue (i): whether the writ challenge to the assessment-related order was not maintainable in view of the statutory rectification route and limitation.
Analysis: The rectification remedy under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was invoked, and the subsequent writ challenge was found to be improper where the assessee had elected a statutory course. The challenge was also beyond the permissible period, and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not to be invoked when the matter could not be entertained on the facts placed before the Court.
Conclusion: The writ challenge was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the rectification order under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was amenable to appeal under Section 107 of the same Act, and whether delay in approaching the appellate forum deserved condonation.
Analysis: Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was construed broadly as providing an appeal against any decision or order under the Act, including an order passed in rectification. The appellate remedy was thus held to be available, and the delay in approaching that remedy was condoned, with liberty to file the appeal within the stipulated period and subject to other statutory requirements.
Conclusion: The rectification order was held to be appealable, the delay was condoned, and liberty was granted to pursue the appeal.
Final Conclusion: The writ challenge failed, but the appellants were permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy on condonation of delay, so the overall decision was only partly in their favour.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a broad first appellate remedy against an order passed under the Act, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy, and delay may be condoned to enable pursuit of the statutory appeal when justice so requires.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
