Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
DHANYAMOL V – Appellant
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 113 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM, SMT.SHEEJA D.K., SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN
Delay in invoking statutory remedies leads to dismissal of writ petition despite substantive merit.
Headnote:In this case, the petitioner challenged an order under Sec.73 of the CGST Act regarding rejection of input tax credit for excise duty. The Court held that the petitioner was barred from challenging the order due to a significant delay in seeking remedies. The pertinent legal reasoning involved the validity of service under the Act through online portals. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cgst order based on input tax credit rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delay in appeal process affects remedy availability. (Para 3) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The challenge raised by the petitioner is against Ext.P4, an order passed under Sec.73 of the CGST Act. The main challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P4 is on account of the fact that, the said order was passed consequent to the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner in GST TRAN-1, seeking input tax credit of excise duty on the closing stock held on 30.06.2017. According to the petitioner, the said application was rejected without giving an opportunity of being heard and consequently, the said amount has been demanded as per Ext.P4 order passed under Sec.73 of the Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions with regard to the sustainability of the said order. However, it is discernible from the records that, Ext.P4 order was passed on 28.12.2023, wherein, the dismissal of the Form GST TRAN-1 application has been specifically dealt with. Despite the fact that the same has been specifically mentioned therein, no challenge is raised against the said order, by filing appeal. Even this writ petition is submitted, after more than two years from the date of issuance of Ext.P4.
3. Of course the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner was not aware of Ext.P4 and has not received any intimation on the same. The petitioner came to know about the same only on receipt of Ext.P5. However, it is not disputed that, Ext.P4 was uploaded in the web portal and as per Sec.169 of the CGST Act, the uploading of the order on the portal is treated as valid service of notice. The said fact is already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as well.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that, due to delay and lapses from the petitioner in invoking the statutory remedies or Constitutional remedies, for a period more than two years, I do not find any justifiable reasons to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
