Case Law Details
Prakash Varghese Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court recently addressed a case involving Prakash Varghese and the State Tax Officer. The writ petition sought relief, challenging Exhibit P3 order and requesting a fresh digitally signed order as per Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Alternatively, it sought to quash the order and requested any other appropriate relief.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Grounds for Writ Petition:
- The primary demand was for a mandamus to issue a digitally signed Exhibit P3 order.
- Emphasis on adherence to Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules for clarity on issuance date.
2. Alternative Relief:
- The petitioner’s counsel expressed the intention to withdraw the writ petition.
- Decision influenced by the desire to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of CGST/Kerala SGST Act.
3. Legal Basis for Withdrawal:
- Reference to Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax dated 02.11.2023.
- Extending the limitation for filing an appeal against the assessment order.
4. Court’s Decision:
- Acceptance of the withdrawal request.
- Disposal of the writ petition with liberty granted to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/Kerala SGST Act within two weeks.
5. Consideration of Appeal:
- Stipulation that if an appeal is filed within the specified time, it will be considered in accordance with the mentioned notification.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s decision in the Prakash Varghese Vs State Tax Officer case underscores the importance of adherence to procedural rules in tax matters. The allowance of withdrawal with the option to appeal provides a strategic avenue for the petitioner, ensuring a fair consideration of the case within the extended timeline. This case serves as a noteworthy precedent for navigating the complexities of the CGST/Kerala SGST Act, emphasizing the significance of timely and procedural actions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs;
i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent to issue Exhibit P3 order afresh, digitally signed, as stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, clearly specifying the date on which such order is issued, so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal against the same before the appellate authority.
Or in the alternative
ii. call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 order, and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and
iii. issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. After some arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would like to withdraw this writ petition to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/Kerala SGST Act, 2017 against the assessment order within the extended limitation prescribed by Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
3. Considering the said submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/Kerala SGST Act, 2017 against Exhibit P-3 order within a period of two weeks from today. If such an Appeal has been filed, same shall be considered and decided considering it is to be on time as per the Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax referred to above.
With the aforesaid direction and liberty, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.
