M/S Amba Shakti Udyog LTD. Thr. Its Director vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and that an assessment order had been passed. In such circumstances, the appropriate course of action would have been to approach the appellate forum under Section 107 of the GST Act, which the petitioner had not done. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the non-consideration of facts and their reply. While the respondents initially opposed the condonation of delay, the Court, considering the concept of justice, equity, and good conscience, and the bona fides of the petitioner, was of the view that the delay caused by the pendency of the writ petition should not hinder the petitioner from agitating the assessment order before the appellate forum. Consequently, the Court directed that if the appeal is filed within 30 days, the Appellate Authority shall not insist on the question of limitation and shall address the issues raised by the petitioner on facts, law, and alleged irregularities. The petitioner was also granted liberty to apply for interim protection, which the Appellate Authority was directed to consider promptly.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Amba Shakti Udyog Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that a show-cause notice was sent without attachments, and despite subsequent correspondence, the required documents were not provided. They also argued that their reply was not considered and the facts were not properly assessed, leading to a huge tax liability. The respondents, represented by the State of Madhya Pradesh, did not dispute the jurisdiction of the authorities. The petitioner, after arguing for a while, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition to file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, requesting condonation of delay as over two years had passed since the impugned order, while the limitation period is three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act? 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act should be condoned, considering the pendency of the writ petition? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of facts and without providing necessary documents, amounting to procedural irregularities. They contended that their reply was not considered. The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, initially opposed the prayer for condonation of delay, submitting that the petitioner was aware of the alternative remedy at the time of filing the writ petition and that the choice of a wrong forum is not an excuse. However, the respondents did not dispute the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner.