M/S. Sai Subham Medi Shop, Cuttack vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Facts

The petitioner, Sai Subham Medi Shop, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 17, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle, under Section 73 of the CGST and OGST Acts for the tax periods April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner also challenged Notifications No. 09/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-Central Tax, issued under Section 168A, which extended the limitation period for passing orders under Section 73. The State Tax Officer had issued a show cause notice alleging excess input tax credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner. The petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, leading to the impugned order. The writ petition was filed on July 28, 2025, approximately 11 months after the order was passed.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, leaving the adjudicating authority with no alternative but to pass a reasoned order determining the tax liability. The Court found no plausible reason to entertain the writ petition, especially considering the inordinate delay of approximately 11 months in filing the petition after the order was passed on August 17, 2024. The Court emphasized the principle of "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (the law assists those who are vigilant). Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Nandlal Jaiswal, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily does not assist the tardy, indolent, or acquiescent, particularly when there is unexplained delay and potential for third-party rights to intervene. The Court also referred to Commissioner of Income Tax Vrs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reinforcing the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained if an effective alternative remedy is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances like breach of natural justice or procedural irregularities. The Court concluded that no case was made out for exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction and that the issues raised could be agitated before the competent statutory authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, when the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice and has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, especially given the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was hit by the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the GST Act, and the extension of this period through notifications issued under Section 168A was illegal. They contended that the suppliers made genuine transactions and the ITC claim was rejected on flimsy grounds, warranting intervention by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction without resorting to the alternative remedy. Revenue's arguments: The Opposite Parties (Revenue) argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to challenge the order and should not have approached the High Court directly. They submitted that the petitioner circumvented the statutory remedy by raising a plea that the authority exceeded its power under Section 73(10) read with Section 168A.