M/S.Prd Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Held

The Court acknowledged that there was no scope for entertaining the writ petition based on the averments, particularly given the expiry of the appeal period. However, considering the possibility of the petitioner having a case on merits and the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit the disputed tax, the Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This was made conditional on verification of whether the entire disputed tax had been recovered. If not, the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance disputed tax within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the petitioner's case, focusing instead on procedural compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. PRD Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.04.2023, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, for the assessment year 2021-22. This order followed a Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2023, to which the petitioner had not responded, nor availed the personal hearing. The writ petition was filed on 28.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit the disputed tax, subject to verification of any amount already recovered. The respondent's counsel could not confirm if any recovery had been made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but has expired, and the petitioner has not availed it? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they are willing to pre-deposit the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, subject to verification of the amount already recovered. They made an endorsement undertaking to pay 100% of the tax if not recovered. Respondent's argument: The respondent, through the Government Advocate (Taxes), was unable to confirm whether any recovery had been made. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case.