Satwa Solutions Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The Kerala High Court dismissed Satwa Solutions’ writ appeal against the Single Judge’s dismissal of its writ petition on the ground of an available alternative statutory remedy. The appellant contended that Ext.P2 notice contained only an electronic summary without full details and that the consequential Ext.P3 order was therefore illegal. It also claimed that, owing to extenuating circumstances, it had not seen the notice or order uploaded on the portal and became aware of them only when recovery proceedings commenced.
It relied on M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Others, 2026 (8) TMI 1587. The Government Pleader opposed the appeal and asserted that the appellant had availed input tax credit during the relevant period, indicating that it was watching the portal. While accepting the proposition that a statutory notice must be issued in the prescribed manner, the Court held that the appellant’s assertion of not having seen the notice and order was uncorroborated and self-serving.
Any objection to the notice’s validity or lack of particulars ought to have been raised at the appropriate time, allowing the authorities to respond with the necessary details. Instead, the appellant remained silent until the final order was issued. Finding no error in the Single Judge’s decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that its observations would not preclude any other remedies legally available to the appellant.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Others, 2026 (8) TMI 1587 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon by the appellant in support of its objection to the notice. The High Court accepted that statutory notices must follow the prescribed manner, but dismissed the appeal because the appellant’s claim of not seeing the portal proceedings was uncorroborated and it had failed to raise its objections at the appropriate time.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge on various grounds, but primarily that the dismissal of their writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy and not availing it, is untenable, illegal and unlawful.
2. Sri.P.J.Anilkumar – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, when his client has a specific case that Ext.P2 notice is not in the manner as statutorily stipulated, the final order pursuant thereto – namely Ext.P3, can only be construed to be inept, non est and therefore, illegal. He contented that, when Ext.P3 is so, alternative remedy would not bar a writ petition before this Court; and hence that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on that ground.
3. Sri.T.K.Shaij Raj – learned Senior Government Pleader, in response, submitted that when the appellant admits that they have received Ext.P2 notice and that they were aware of Ext.P3 proceedings, the refusal or failure to take necessary action under law against it, naturally justifies the views of the learned Single Judge. He prayed that this appeal be hence, dismissed.
4. The pleadings of the appellant are to the effect that, on account of certain extenuating circumstances, they did not see Ext.P2 notice or Ext.P3 order uploaded in the portal, and that they came to be aware of it only when recovery action was initiated. Their specific contention is that Ext.P2 is not proper, because it contains only an electronic summary and not the full details. They rely up on M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Others [2026 (8) TMI 1587] in substantiation.
5. We have no reason to raise quarrel with the afore proposition of law, that a statutory notice requires to be issued in the manner it is stipulated. However, in this case, even after the acceptance of Ext.P2 in the portal, the appellant alleges that they did not see it, but it is ineluctable that this is a self serving statement. If they had a case that Ext.P2 was not valid, or that it did not contain the proper details, it was always open to them to reply to it and to even insist that no further proceedings be taken forward. However, to the contrary, the appellant kept silent after receiving Ext.P2, until Ext.P3 final order had been issued. They explain that it is only after it when they receive the notice of recovery, that they came to be aware of all these.
6. Interestingly, it is the specific assertion of Sri.T.K.Shaij Raj – learned Senior Government Pleader, that, during the relevant time, the appellant had availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and that this establishes they were watching the portal, contrary to what they are now saying.
7. It is unmistakable from the attendant circumstances, that the controversy in this case is pirouetted on the factual assertion of the appellant that they had not seen Ext.P2 notice, or Ext.P3 order, until they received intimation of recovery. However, the afore assertion remains without any corroboration and is a self serving statement, which cannot be accepted by any Court.
8. As already said above, the objection to Ext.P2 ought to have been raised at the right time; and had it been done then, the Authorities would have been alerted to respond properly with the necessary details. When the appellant chose to keep silent and to invite Ext.P3 order, one cannot come to their aid.
9. We cannot, therefore, find the holdings of the learned Single Judge to be in error.
10. This appeal is, consequently, dismissed.
We, however, clarify that if there are any other remedies that are legally available to the appellant, the same shall not stand precluded by our observations.
