The exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be denied based on inordinate delay, especially when alternative remedies exist.

ORDER :

1. In the garb of challenging order dated 17^th August, 2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (collectively be called “the GST Act”) for the tax periods from April, 2019 to March, 2020, the petitioner craves to question the exercise of power under Section 168A to issue Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax, dated 31st March, 2023 vide Annexure-6 and Notification No.56/2023- Central Tax, dated 28^th December, 2023 vide Annexure- 7 by the Government of India in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extending the period of limitation to pass an order under Section 73 by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals that upon scrutiny of returns filed by the petitioner-assessee under Section 39 of the GST Act, a show cause notice in GST DRC-01 has come to be issued by the State Tax Officer on the allegation of excess input tax credit availed while filing Form GSTR-3B vis-a-vis available input tax credit in Form GSTR-2A. Having not responded to such show cause notice, the State Tax Officer- opposite party no.2 invoked powers under Section 73 and passed order dated 17.08.2024.

2.1. Said order is under challenged in the present writ petition on the premise that the said adjudication order is hit by limitation contained under Section 73 (10) of the GST Act, notwithstanding such statutory period has been extended from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 168A of the GST Act by virtue of Notifications dated 31^st March, 2023 and 28^th December, 2023 under Annexures-4 & 5 respectively.

3. Mr. Madhab Lal Agarwal along with Ms. Zenish Mary Wallace, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned cannot be sustained inasmuch as the statutory period of limitation specified under Section 73 of the GST Act could not be extended by virtue of Notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Act.

3.1. Laying emphasis on the pleading contained in the writ petition it is submitted that the suppliers have made genuine transactions with the petitioner and the claim of input tax credit has been rejected on flimsy grounds. Therefore, Mr. Madhab Lal Agarwal, learned Advocate fervently prayed to entertain this writ petition, as adjudication on facts needs no exhaustive rigmarole process of alternative remedy but the matter could be resolved in the writ jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for CT & GST Department along with Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Central Excise, GST and Customs Department unison submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the order dated 17^th August, 2024, but circumventing such remedy, the petitioner should not have approached this Court straightway by way of this writ petition on the specious plea that the authority concerned has transgressed his power under Section 73 (10) read with Notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Act.

5. Heard Mr. Madhab Lal Agarwal, learned counsel along with Ms. Zenish Mary Wallace, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for CT & GST Department along with Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Central Excise, GST and Customs Department.

6. Considered the material available on record. As it revealed from the record that to the show cause notice dated 17.05.2024 no reply is chosen to be given by the petitioner with respect to the factual discrepancy noticed by the adjudicating authority regarding claim of input tax credit in Form GSTR-3B vis-a-vis available input tax credit in Form GSTR-2A. As a result of which the adjudicating authority had no alternative but to determine the tax liabi