Dwarika Projects Limited (Gstin - 10Aaccd1620Qizz) vs. State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Dwarika Projects Limited, is challenging an assessment order dated January 7, 2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Saran, Bihar. The petitioner contends that the order was ex-parte. However, the petitioner did not avail the appellate remedy provided under Section 107(4) of the relevant GST Act. This section prescribes a limitation period of three months for appeal, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay by the appellate authority. The present writ petition was filed before the Patna High Court challenging the assessment order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 cannot be maintained to challenge an assessment order when the statutory appellate remedy has not been availed of within the prescribed time limits. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the period stipulated in Section 107(4), which is three months plus a further one month for condonation. It is trite law that specific periods prescribed for condonation of delay in a statute constructively exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the challenge made against the assessment order under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can entertain a challenge to an assessment order when the statutory appellate remedy has not been availed of within the prescribed limitation period, including the condonable delay period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was ex-parte and sought to challenge it. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or reliance on any specific provisions or precedents. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the State Goods and Services Tax through its Principal Secretary and the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, implicitly argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the non-exhaustion of the statutory remedy and the expiry of the limitation period for appeal. The judgment relies on the principle that statutory limitations for condonation of delay exclude the general provisions of the Limitation Act.