Judgment
WP(C) NO. 11794 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:24881 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 11794 OF 2025 PETITIONER :
STOY ABRAHAM AGED 50 YEARS XII/591, 592, KANJIRAM, POTTASSERI PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678591 BY ADVS.
PADMANATHAN K.V.
R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS :
1 STATE TAX OFFICER MANNARKKAD, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, KODATHIPPADI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582 2 THE DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE MANNARKKAD, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, KODATHIPPADI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 582 BY SMT.DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11794 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:24881 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- W.P.(C) No.11794 of 2025 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order dated 31.05.2022 issued under Section 73 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs.1,67,090/-. The order of determination relates to the financial year 2017-18. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the benefit of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and hence he should be granted an opportunity to avail the benefit before the first respondent.
2. I have heard Sri.Padmanathan K.V., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. On a perusal of the circumstances of the case, this Court notices that the impugned order is dated 31.05.2022. For the last almost three years, petitioner had not challenged the impugned order by way of an appeal. After sitting over his rights to prefer an appeal, he cannot now turn around and seek invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
WP(C) NO. 11794 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:24881 the order was uploaded in the 'additional notices and orders' tab instead of 'notices and orders' tab, I am of the view that no material has been produced to justify the aforesaid contention. Even otherwise, what was uploaded, according to the petitioner is an order and since the tab contains the name 'additional notices and orders', there is no reason to assume that petitioner was unaware about the impugned order having been uploaded in the portal. Hence the said contention is without any merit.
Once the statute creates a scheme providing for appellate remedy, if such remedies are not resorted to and the limitation period expires, the party loses his right to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference to the decision in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005 (4) KLT 947] is relevant in this context.
In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 11794 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:24881 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11794/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17-02-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-02-2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY FACT LTD Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 183/15/2022-GST DATED 27-12-2022 ISSUED BY CBIC Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 25-02-2025 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31-05-2022