Dhanyamol V Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The writ petition before the Kerala High Court concerned a challenge to an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding tax following rejection of the petitioner’s Form GST TRAN-1.
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST and KGST Acts, had filed Form GST TRAN-1 seeking transitional input tax credit of excise duty on closing stock held as on 30.06.2017. The application was rejected, and based on such rejection, an order dated 28.12.2023 (Ext.P4) was passed under Section 73 demanding the disputed amount. The petitioner contended that the TRAN-1 application was rejected without affording an opportunity of being heard and that the consequential demand was therefore unsustainable.
The Court noted that Ext.P4 specifically dealt with the rejection of the TRAN-1 application. Despite this, the petitioner did not file any statutory appeal challenging the said order. Further, the writ petition itself was filed after a delay of more than two years from the date of issuance of Ext.P4.
The petitioner argued that she was not aware of Ext.P4 and had not received any intimation regarding the order, claiming knowledge only upon receipt of a subsequent communication (Ext.P5). However, it was undisputed that Ext.P4 had been uploaded on the GST portal. The Court observed that under Section 169 of the CGST Act, uploading of an order on the portal constitutes valid service of notice. This position had already been upheld by a Division Bench of the same Court.
