Case Law Details
Manjally Jewellery Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In the case of Manjally Jewellery vs State Tax Officer, the Kerala High Court encountered a writ petition challenging the failure to consider the petitioner’s reply in the assessment order under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. Despite the petitioner’s contentions, the Court held that the matter falls within the realm of alternate remedies provided by the GST Act.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, Manjally Jewellery, sought various reliefs through the writ petition, including quashing the show cause notice and assessment order, provision of details of unpaid tax, and declaration of certain GST Act provisions as unconstitutional. The central argument revolved around the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner’s reply by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order.
However, the Kerala High Court emphasized that invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of specific contentions raised in reply to the show cause notice is not permissible. The Court noted that the petitioner has alternate remedies available under the provisions of the GST Act, which should be pursued instead of resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it along with any pending interlocutory applications.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition by the Kerala High Court in the case of Manjally Jewellery vs State Tax Officer underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory remedies provided under the GST Act. While the petitioner raised valid concerns regarding the non-consideration of their reply, the Court reiterated the principle that such matters should be addressed through the prescribed mechanisms within the legal framework. This ruling serves as a reminder of the significance of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking relief through extraordinary avenues like writ petitions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed mainly seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) To call for the entire records leading to issuance of Ext.P4 show cause notice and completion of Ext.P6 order by 1st respondent and quash Ext-P4 show cause notice and Ext.P6 order completed by the 1st respondent, by issuing a Writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;
(ii) To issue a Writ or Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directing, 1st respondent to provide the Petitioner with a statement containing details of tax not paid for 2017-18 under proper show cause notice for filing reply, against the allegation short payment of self- assessed tax 2017-18, while re-considering the matter;
(iii) To declare that Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 and Sub Rule (4) of Rule 36 of the CGST Rules and Kerala SGST Rules as unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
(iv) To declaring/reading down Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 being ultra vires Section 16(1) and objective of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;
(v) To hear this matter along with Ext P12, granting stay on Ext P6 and grand the Petitioner with such other incidental reliefs, including cost of these proceedings;
(vi) To issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in directing 1st respondent to consider Ext P2 amendment carried out by the Petitioner against the GSTR-1 reflected in Ext P1 along with Ext P5 reply, under a personal hearing to Petitioner, while reconsidering the matter for 2017-18;”
2. The limited ground which has been argued before this Court is that the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice has not been considered while passing the impugned order, P6. The petitioner has alternate remedy under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act.
3. The ground urged in the present writ petition that some of the arguments or some of the contentions raised in reply to the show cause notice has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, cannot be enforced by this Court while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I find no substance in the present writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Author Bio
