Kerala HC Rejects Challenge to GST Penalty u/s 74 CGST Act Due to Delay and Lack of Jurisdictional Error [Read Order]
The Court held that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked once the appeal period had lapsed, unless there was a lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice—neither of which was established in this case.
![Kerala HC Rejects Challenge to GST Penalty u/s 74 CGST Act Due to Delay and Lack of Jurisdictional Error [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gst-penalty-site-img.jpg "Kerala HC Rejects Challenge to GST Penalty u/s 74 CGST Act Due to Delay and Lack of Jurisdictional Error [Read Order]")
The High Court of Kerala, dismissed a writ petition challenging a Goods and Service Tax (GST) penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax(CGST) Act, citing delay and absence of any jurisdictional error. Tabascohindustan Infradevelopers Private Limited,petitioner-assessee, petitioner-assessee, was engaged in building residential apartments and commercial complexes....
The High Court of Kerala, dismissed a writ petition challenging a Goods and Service Tax (GST) penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax(CGST) Act, citing delay and absence of any jurisdictional error.
Tabascohindustan Infradevelopers Private Limited,petitioner-assessee, petitioner-assessee, was engaged in building residential apartments and commercial complexes. A show cause notice was issued under Section 74(1), and the department passed the impugned order on 27.09.2023, demanding ₹30,42,916 as tax and an equal amount as penalty.
GST Litigation Secrets – Winning Strategies from Real Cases! Click Here
The petitioner paid the tax but did not pay the penalty and also did not file an appeal. After more than 17 months, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the penalty portion of the order (Ext.P1).
The Court heard the petitioner’s counsel Sri. Rajesh Nambiar, Senior Government Pleader Dr. Thushara James, and standing counsel Sri. V. Girish Kumar.
It noted that once the time limit for filing an appeal expired, the petitioner could not seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court could interfere only in rare cases where the order lacked jurisdiction or violated natural justice, which was not the case here.
GST Litigation Secrets – Winning Strategies from Real Cases! Click Here
A single member bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas(Judge) also observed that the petitioner had accepted the order by paying the tax and chose not to file an appeal within the time allowed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. So, there was no reason to interfere under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
