9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 by the CT & GST Officer, Barbil Circle, Jajpur, Odisha under Annexure-4, by which a demand of Rs. 1,25,240.00 has been raised against the petitioner towards tax, interest and penalty. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The opposite party issued a show cause notice on 01.10.2021 to the petitioner under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "OGST Act, 2017") alleging that although the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 4,14,427/- for execution of works contract, as ascertained from the WAMIS Data, but the petitioner has entered 'NIL' in the GSTR-3B returns filed by it for the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verifying the returns filed by the petitioner and, as such, the same is illegal, arbitrary and suffers from violation of principle of natural justice. 4. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue contended that since statutory remedy of filing appeal is available to the petitioner, as against the order impugned, the present writ petition is not liable to be entertained. That apart, much after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, the petitioner having approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, the same is not maintainable. In support of such stand, he has placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. It is also not in dispute that against the order impugned the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy by way of filing appeal, as available under the statute. As such, the present writ petition, having been filed without availing the alternative remedy, cannot be entertained. 7. In Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra), the apex Court at paragraphs-14 and 15 held as follows:- "14. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in reference to Article 226 of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra). In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
