Writ jurisdiction is not maintainable if filed beyond statutory limitation under tax statutes.

ORDER :

1. Learned counsel Sri M.Uma Shankar appears for the petitioner.

Learned counsel Sri K.Sanjeev appears for respondent No.1.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondents No.2 to 5.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The impugned order-in-original dated 20.10.2023 relating to tax periods July 2017 to March 2020 was passed by respondent No.3 imposing the liability of tax, interest and penalty after adjusting the amount paid by the petitioner through Form GST DRC-03 on the basis of an audit report. The same has been impugned in the present writ petition preferred on 14.10.2025.

4. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred W.P.No.30322 of 2025 with the same relief, which was withdrawn on 08.10.2025 due to mistake in the cause title.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, raised a number of grounds in favour of the challenge: that the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was not issued under Rule 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules”), which is in violation of the circular of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) bearing Circular No.4/2023-GST, dated 23.11.2023 (Ex.21A); that Forms GST DRC-07 issued pursuant to the order-in- original on 19.12.2023 were digitally or physically unsigned. He submits that the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings due to non-service of notice. The petitioner was also not informed that the order-in- original has been passed by uploading it under the “orders” head in the GST portal. Instead, it was uploaded under the head of “additional notices/orders” which the petitioner could not notice. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned proceedings only upon intimation on phone about the non-payment of the outstanding arrears. On these grounds, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order-in-original dated 20.10.2023.

6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has taken us to the chronology of dates and events which are also reflected from the pleadings and annexures on record. He submits that on 21.02.2022, the petitioner, through an unsigned Form GST DRC-03, debited entries towards payment of tax dues as per the audit report which has also been taken note in paragraph 2.1.1 of the order-in-original. The final audit report of the petitioner’s account was issued by respondent No.4 for the period July 2017 to March 2020 on 15.07.2022 (Ex.P6). The show cause notice was issued on 07.02.2023 by respondent No.4, which is Ex.P18. The petitioner was granted personal hearing opportunities as per paragraph 5 of the order-in-original on 13.09.2023, 04.10.2023, 11.10.2023 and 12.10.2023. These personal hearing notices were communicated through speed post and also e-mail as is evident from the order-in-original also. Even thereafter, the petitioner neither participated in the proceedings nor furnished any reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, respondent No.3 was obliged to determine the tax liability along with interest and penalty as per the order-in-original dated 20.10.2023 based on the available material on record. The summary of the order in Forms GST DRC-07 for all these years were issued on 19.12.2023 (Exs.P1, P2 and P3). On 26.02.2024, respondent No.3 issued a corrigendum modifying the order-in-original (Ex.P4A). Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has drawn the attention of this Court to the operative portion of the order-in-original, which shows that the order-in-original, besides being uploaded on GST portal and sent to e-m