No, the Honorable Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s. Thekedar Nand Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1437/2024 dated 30.04.2024] dismissed the writ petition and held that the writ petition against the Assessment Order is not maintainable since the remedy of appeal is not availed during the period of limitation.
The Honorable Rajasthan High Court noted that the Petitioner did not file the appeal and admittedly was aware of the impugned Order passed. Further noted that the Petitioner deliberately chose not to file the appeal and avail the remedy of appeal prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act but waited for the prescribed period of limitation for filing of appeal to expire. The Honorable High Court relying upon the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020 dated 06.05.2020] wherein it was held that the writ petition cannot be filed for granting of relief against the assessment order passed, when the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period, therefore, being barred by limitation, the Honorable High Court opined that the writ petition is not maintainable and the writ petition is dismissed.
Author’s Comment
To approach the High Court, it must be shown to the Honorable Court that the proceedings;
a) Deserves intervention to stop the march of injustice;
b) Remedy necessary, cannot be allowed in adjudication or in appeal.
Timelines are extremely important in the GST Law. If the appeal is not preferred within the time limit allowed (3+1 month) under section 107 of the CGST Act, then it operates as a “Prescription” where the right/ remedy under the law is lost due to delay.
Similar orders were delivered by the Honorable Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Sri Maharaja Industries v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [W.P. Nos. 16075, 16077, 16080 and 16082 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos. 15499, 15500, 15501, 15502, 15506, 15508, 15509 & 15511 of 2023, dated 24.05.2023] and in the case of Thiruchy Royal Steels v. Deputy State Tax Officer [W.P. No. 155338 of 2023, W.M.P. Nos. 14861 and 14863 of 2023 dated 11.05.2023] wherein the writ was rejected by stating if the alternate remedy is available, then the petitioner should exercise that before filing a writ petition.
Share this content: