The Orissa High Court, in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, has refused to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for reassessment when the assessee had failed to enrol in the common Goods and Services Tax (GST) Portal within the prescribed statutory time limit.
The appellant had also failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit, apart from the failure to enrol.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the demand raised by the authority under Annexures-7 and 8 series considering the payment made through statutory return form GSTR-3B under Annexure-5 series.
K.R. Choudhury, counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner deposited the amount, demand for 2017-18 has been raised by the authority by issue of DRC-07 dated
18.10.2019, which was rectified vide order dated 17.03.2020, which the petitioner claimed that he is not liable to pay.
It was submitted that, vide notice dated 17.03.2020 pertaining to 2018-19 under Annexure-8 series the demand has been raised vide assessment order dated 29.07.2021 pursuant to notice dated 17.03.2020 issued under Section 63 of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act.
The petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court, the assessment order dated 29.07.2021 and contended that the petitioner has provisional ID for enrolment on the common portal, but the authority has assessed on the basis of provisional ID, which the petitioner was not aware of.
The Revenue representative Sunil Mishra contended that the demand was raised for 2017-18 vide Annexure-7 dated 17.03.2020 and for 2018-19 vide Annexure-8 dated 29.07.2021, but the petitioner has challenged the same in the year 2023. Therefore, the same was submitted to be grossly barred by limitation under Section 107 of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act so as to be entertained in this writ petition.
Seeking dismissal of the petition, the revenue argued that the order of assessment passed by the authority is appealable one and instead of preferring appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, after long lapse of more than two years, which was not maintainable.
The Bench observed that, “if the contention of the petitioner, that he has already paid the demands raised by the authority is accepted, then it is the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the authority concerned indicating that the demands raised are erroneous and, as such, in view of the dues already paid vide Annexure 5 series, the demand notices be rectified.”
But instead of doing so, the petitioner waited for three years and, thereafter, approached this Court challenging the assessment orders passed by the authority on 17.03.2020 for 2017-18 and 29.07.2021 for 2018-19.
Dismissing the petition, the Division Bench of Justice B R Sarangi and Justice M S Raman observed that, “the assessment order is very clear that the petitioner has been issued with a provisional ID for enrolment on the common portal, but he has failed to enroll on the common portal.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
