Case Law Details
Sunil Kumar K Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: Sunil Kumar K, a dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, contested an assessment order through a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. However, the court’s decision highlighted the availability of statutory remedies under the CGST Act, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner raised concerns regarding the availability of the assessment order on the government portal as mandated by Section 146 of the GST Act. However, the court noted that despite the order being accessible online, the petitioner downloaded it from the website, invalidating the contention. Furthermore, it emphasized the petitioner’s failure to utilize the statutory remedy of appealing to the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act.
The court’s dismissal of the writ petition underscores the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking public law remedies like writ petitions. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner bypassed the prescribed appellate process, leading to the rejection of the petition.
Conclusion: In the case of Sunil Kumar K vs State Tax Officer-I, the Kerala High Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in challenging assessment orders under the CGST Act. It clarifies that writ petitions may not be entertained when statutory remedies are available, promoting the efficient resolution of tax disputes through established legal avenues. This ruling serves as a reminder for taxpayers to exhaust all available remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/ Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder, challenging the assessment order in Ext.P12. One of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 146 of the GST Act, the Government is required to notify the Government Portal to upload the orders, notices etc. But till date no such Government Portal has been notified, and therefore, the petitioner could not access to the impugned order on the website.
2. There is no dispute that the order was available on the website and petitioner could have accessed the order by mentioning the registration number and in fact in paragraph 14, the petitioner himself has admitted that the petitioner downloaded the impugned order from the website. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold. Even otherwise the order does not suffer from any lacuna or infirmity on law or facts. The petitioner instead of approaching the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act, had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the public law remedy, which may not be available to the petitioner in view of the specific provision of appeal against the impugned order.
Therefore, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition. Thus, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Author Bio
