M/S Laxmi Industries Through Proprietor Sandhya Omar vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has a clear remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court also noted the Petitioner's admission that the issue regarding the extension of the period for concluding assessments is pending before the Supreme Court. In light of these circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petitions. The Petitioner was granted the liberty to avail the appellate remedy if so advised. The Court observed that the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the final opinion expressed by the Supreme Court on the pending issue. No specific finding was given on the merits of the impugned orders, as the petitions were disposed of on procedural grounds and the pendency of a higher court matter.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Laxmi Industries, filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging orders passed on August 18, 2024, and March 27, 2024. The Respondent is the Sales Tax Officer Class II and another authority. The Petitioner admitted that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available. The Petitioner also acknowledged that the issue concerning the extension of the period for concluding assessments is pending before the Supreme Court. The Court noted this procedural posture and the pendency of a related issue before the apex court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available to the Petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner did not explicitly argue for the maintainability of the writ petitions. However, by filing the writ petitions, it implicitly sought extraordinary jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, represented by the Sales Tax Officer Class II and another authority, did not explicitly argue against the maintainability of the writ petitions. However, the Court itself noted the availability of the appellate remedy. 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the final opinion of the Supreme Court on the issue of extending the period for concluding assessments, pending before it? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner admitted that the issue regarding the extension of the period for concluding assessments is pending before the Supreme Court and implicitly sought to await its decision. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue did not record any specific argument on this issue.