P Senthil Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, P. Senthil Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 13.07.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin II Assessment Circle. This impugned order was issued following a notice in GSTR 3A dated 25.06.2024, to which the petitioner had not filed a reply. The respondent passed the order on the basis of the non-receipt of a reply from the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature. It reasoned that the petitioner had an available statutory remedy under Section 62(2) of the respective GST enactment. This provision allows a taxpayer who has not filed a return to pay the tax due along with late fees and interest, and then file the return. The Court found that the petitioner could still avail this option to rectify the situation. Therefore, no further orders were required in the writ petition, and it was open for the petitioner to pay the late fee as per Section 47 of the GST Act, 2017, and file the return under Section 62(2) within the statutory period. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction, especially when the petitioner can still comply with the law and regularize their non-compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of statutory remedies under the GST enactment? (Question of law) The petitioner's contention, implicitly, is that the impugned order is erroneous and warrants judicial intervention. The respondent's argument is that the writ petition is premature because the petitioner has a statutory remedy available under Section 62(2) of the respective GST enactment, which allows for the payment of late fees and filing of returns within the prescribed period. The respondent relies on the principle that alternative statutory remedies should be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226.