The single bench of Madras High Court presided by Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar has held that extraordinary Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can’t be invoked if appellate jurisdiction under section 107 is available.
The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Southern Comforts failed to file the return within the 30 days, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 62. Thereafter returns were filed belatedly, the admitted tax had been paid and the remaining tax according to the impugned orders is the disputed tax, for which, an appeal can be filed but due to the Covid situation the petitioner could not immediately approach the Appellate Authority to file appeals under Section 107 of the Act in time. Even the condonable period of delay was also over. Hence, approached the High Court by filing writ petitions challenging the impugned orders by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an appeal under section 107 is preferred before the appellate Tribunal the petitioner should have to comply with the condition of pre-deposit of amount as specified under section 107 (6). It was submitted that the Bank accounts of the petitioner have been attached. Therefore, the entire business of the petitioner has been crippled, hence, by way of interim relief, the Bank attachment order made by the respondent Revenue can be directed to be lifted so that the petitioner can move further to comply with the provisions of Section 107.
The High Court observed that if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, violation of statutory provisions, or for want of jurisdiction of the authority who passes the impugned order, then only the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 226 can be invoked.
The High Court further observed that when the Covid-19 pandemic first wave situation started and there was a complete lockdown of the entire Country from the third week of March 2020 and taking that grim situation, the Supreme Court also in the suo moto writ petition has extended the limitation period up to May 2022.
The High Court has held that “the impugned orders cannot be successfully challenged before this Court on the ground of non-exhausting the alternative, the efficacious appellate remedy which is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, hence, these writ petitions are rejected with the liberty to the petitioner by relegating the petitioner to go before the Appellate Authority to file appeals”.
Mr. G. Natarajan appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. C. Harsha Raj appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
