Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against GST Demand When Appeal Remedy Exists: Delhi HC Dismisses Tata Play’s Plea
The Court relied upon the sequence of events for the adjudication.
The Delhi High Court held that when a statutory appellate remedy is available against a Goods and Services Tax demand order, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained, especially in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.
The issue concerned a demand arising from alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Definitive GST Guide for Today’s Tax Landscape! Click here
Tata Play Ltd., the petitioner, is engaged in providing Direct-to-Home broadcasting services and is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case arose from a Show Cause Notice dated 30.11.2024 issued for the period April 2020 to March 2021, alleging excess Input Tax Credit availment, followed by a demand order dated 28.02.2025 imposing tax, interest and penalty.
The petitioner approached the High Court, instead of the appellate authority, challenging the limitation of the notice and alleging lack of sufficient opportunity of personal hearing.
Gautam Narayan, appearing for Tata Play Ltd., argued that the Show Cause Notice and consequent order were issued beyond the prescribed limitation under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, because proceedings ought to have been initiated at least three months prior to expiry of the three-year period from the due date for filing the annual return for the financial year 2020-21.
It was further submitted that Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of personal hearing, which was denied due to a technical glitch on the GST Portal that incorrectly recorded “No” against the request for oral hearing despite the petitioner opting “Yes.”
Vaishali Gupta, appearing for the Authorities, submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 30.11.2024, which falls within the mandatory period of three calendar months prior to 28.02.2025, the statutory deadline for passing the order under Section 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was contended that two separate personal hearing dates were offered but the petitioner failed to appear, and therefore principles of natural justice were duly complied with.
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the limitation under Section 73(2) must be interpreted as three calendar months prior to the outer time limit under Section 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice issued on 30.11.2024 was well within limitation.
The Court also observed that adequate opportunity of hearing had been granted since the petitioner sought adjournment on the first date and failed to attend the second. The Court ruled that none of the exceptions warranting writ jurisdiction were established,
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition. However, granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to pre-deposit requirements.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
