Supreme Court Affirms HC Dismissal of GST Writ Petition

Bekem Infra Projects Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)

Supreme Court upheld a High Court’s decision dismissing a writ petition filed by Bekem Infra Projects Ltd. The High Court refused to entertain the petition on the grounds that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which allows for filing an appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the courts.

During the proceedings, the petitioner raised concerns about the limited time remaining to file an appeal under Section 107, with only four days left in the prescribed period. While the appellate authority has the discretion to condone delays beyond the stipulated 30 days, the Supreme Court suggested that the appellate authority consider the petitioner’s time spent pursuing legal remedies in the higher courts when addressing any limitation issues. The Supreme Court did not comment on the merits of the case and dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available statutory appeal mechanism.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

The High Court declined to entertain the writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein on the sole ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

2. If that be so, no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in not entertaining the Writ Petition.

3. However, at this stage the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that his client is now left with only 4 days of period of limitation to file appropriate appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Of course the appellate authority has got powers to condone the delay beyond 30 days of the stipulated period of limitation.

4. We may only say that if any issue as regards limitation arises the Appellate Authority may consider the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court.

5. We do not express any opinion on the merit of the case.

6. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.