Abhinandan Sahoo vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Facts

The petitioner, Abhinandan Sahoo, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 21, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul, under Section 73 of the GST Act for the tax periods April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner also challenged Notifications No. 09/2023 and 56/2023 issued under Section 168A of the GST Act, which extended the limitation period for passing orders. The petitioner had initially responded to a notice regarding understatement of tax liability by filing a reply and making payment. However, a show cause notice was issued, and an adjudication order was passed, demanding tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was time-barred, despite the notifications extending the limitation period.

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted the petitioner's admission of a clerical mistake in reporting tax-free/exempted supplies as taxable supplies, which led to the difference in tax liability. The Court held that such factual aspects require scrutiny and appreciation of evidence by the fact-finding authorities empowered under the GST Act. Furthermore, the Court found no plausible reason for the petitioner's delay in approaching the court, as the order was passed on August 21, 2024, and the writ petition was filed on July 8, 2025, approximately 11 months later. Citing the principle of delay and laches and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction as established in cases like State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, the Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Court suggested that the issues raised could be agitated before the competent authority under the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the statutory period of limitation specified under Section 73 of the GST Act could be extended by virtue of Notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order impugned could not be sustained as the statutory period of limitation under Section 73 could not be extended by notifications issued under Section 168A. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy and should not have approached the High Court directly. They emphasized that the petitioner admitted a mistake in claiming exemptions/tax-free transactions, necessitating adjudication of facts by the GST authorities. They also argued that the petitioner had not approached the court within a reasonable period.