M/S Narayan Traders,Nabarangpur vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST,Nabarangpur

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Narayan Traders, a proprietorship concern, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 22, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Nabarangpur, under Section 73 of the GST Act for the tax periods April 2020 to March 2021. The impugned order arose from discrepancies detected between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC). A notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued on April 26, 2024, followed by a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 on June 27, 2024. The petitioner did not respond to these notices. The writ petition was filed on October 23, 2025, approximately one year after the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court noted that the impugned order was passed on October 22, 2024, and the writ petition was filed on October 23, 2025, indicating an inordinate delay of approximately one year, which was not explained by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority has limited discretion to condone delays, and the petitioner provided no sufficient cause for not approaching the appellate forum within the statutory period. Relying on Supreme Court pronouncements, the Court stated that while High Courts have wide powers under Articles 226 and 227, they should not entertain writ petitions that bypass prescribed statutory remedies, especially when there is a significant delay. The Court also observed that the rejection of ITC claims under Section 16 of the GST Act inherently involves disputed questions of fact, which are best adjudicated by the authorities empowered under the statute, not through writ proceedings. The plea that the order was not physically communicated was dismissed, citing Section 169(1)(d) which deems service when an order is made available on the common portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is available, especially after the expiry of the limitation period for filing such an appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, and there is no speedy, efficacious, or alternative remedy other than invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. They further contended that the adjudicating authority erred by casting the reverse burden on the recipient for the supplier's alleged non-compliance and that disallowing ITC when purchases are genuine and not doubted is arbitrary. Revenue's contention: The Opposite Party (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) vehemently opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner circumvented the available alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act and filed the writ petition directly after the statutory period of limitation had expired.