2026 (3) TMI 1139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 30.12.2023 issued under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. In paragraph 30, the petitioner has made a statement that it has no alternate or equally efficacious remedy other than to move before this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This is because the impugned order is ex-parte. 4. We must say that this statement is completely misleading, and on this ground itself, this petition deserves to be dismissed. As against the impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Therefore, it was a duty of the petitioner to disclose that the order is appealable. After such a disclosure, the petitioner could have always pleaded why, according to the petitioner, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o explanation is received by the aforesaid date, it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing further to say in the matter and the case would proceed in accordance with law. 7. The counter also states that a detailed show cause notice in DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the said Act, vide Reference No. 3182, dated 24.11.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was uploaded on the GSTN Portal and sent to the petitioner's e-mail. The counter affidavit states that despite proper service of the show cause notice, the petitioner did not bother to submit any written/oral explanation or produce any supportive document. The counter also states that the order under Section 73(9) and subsequently issued GST DRC-07 was communicated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hen it will be open to the petitioner to appeal the said order from the alleged date of obtaining knowledge and copies of the order. But again, this is a seriously disputed question of fact which the petitioner will have to establish. A mere statement about belated knowledge can never be sufficient for extending the period of limitation. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, to submit that the High Courts should not allow the petitioner to bypass mechanisms provided under the statute. He submitted that when a complete mechanism is provided under the Act for challenging assessment orders, that mechanism alo....