9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1124 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - appealable order or not - availability of equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy - Rejection of Refund claim - It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority which has passed the order lacks jurisdiction or that the order impugned is passed in violation of principal of natural justice - HELD THAT - The vires of any of the provision of GST Act 2017 is also not called in question in this petition. That being the position this petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly this petition is dismissed - The petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the 2017 Act.
Issues involved: Challenge to rejection of refund claim by assessing authority under GST Act 2017, availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 107, jurisdiction and natural justice considerations.
Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim by assessing authority The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.08.2022 passed by the State Taxes Officer Jurisdiction Circle-'J' Jammu, which rejected the refund claim. The order impugned is appealable under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptions as laid out by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. V. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 and subsequent judgments to warrant entertaining this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no contention that the authority lacked jurisdiction or that the impugned order violated the principle of natural justice. Issue 2: Availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 The vires of any provision of the GST Act 2017 was not challenged in the petition. Given this, the court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it. The petitioner was advised to avail the alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the 2017 Act. Time spent by the petitioner in court would be excluded when calculating the limitation period for appeal. The court suggested that the appellate authority, considering the facts and circumstances, should adopt a lenient view towards condonation of delay.
|
