M/S. Ascent Telecom vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court's decision was primarily based on two grounds: delay in filing the petition and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court observed that the petitioner had sought to raise several issues on the merits of the matter, which were better addressed through the statutory appeal process. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the GSTAT. The Court also noted that the GSTAT had provided a window period for such appeals via an order dated September 24, 2025. The Court made it clear that it had not commented on the merits of the case.

Facts

M/s. Ascent Telecom (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Appellate Order dated March 11, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner Appeals-II (Respondent No. 2). This appellate order arose from a review order dated July 5, 2024, purportedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner sought to declare the appellate order illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation under Section 73 read with the Second Proviso to Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, and violative of natural justice. The petition also sought interim directions to prevent coercive recovery actions pending the disposal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Order dated March 11, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the said Appellate Order is barred by limitation under Section 73 read with the Second Proviso to Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, as argued by the petitioner? 3. Whether the Appellate Order is violative of the principles of natural justice, as claimed by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and crucially, barred by limitation. They specifically invoked Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Second Proviso to Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, to support their claim of limitation. The petitioner also contended that the order violated the principles of natural justice. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the provided judgment excerpt.