Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
A.S. ANIYAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32571 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN, SRI.S.PARAMESWARA PRASAD
For the Respondents: SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC, SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN, SR.G.P
Statutory remedies must be pursued before writ petitions, especially regarding tax assessments.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, arguing lack of opportunity to be heard. The court finds that the petitioner had three hearing opportunities and must pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The petition is dismissed, allowing petitioner to submit an appeal while excluding certain days from limitation calculation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition regarding cgst assessment (Para 1) |
| 2. claims of denial of hearing opportunity (Para 2) |
| 3. jurisdiction and statutory remedies outlined (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, who is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST / KSGST Act, 2017. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, in respect of the assessment year 2019-2020. The challenge raised by the petitioner against the order under , by way of a writ petition, instead of invoking the statutory remedy of appeal, is on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity for being heard and the objections raised by the petitioner are not specifically referred to in the assessment order.
2. A statement has been submitted by the respondents in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the said statement, details of the proceedings that followed before issuing Ext.P3 order are seen mentioned. The same would indicate that the petitioner was granted three opportunities for personal hearing on 13.02.2024, 19.06.2024 and 25.06.2024. Besides, in the Ext.P3 order, the reply submitted by the petitioner was also referred tol.
3. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a case in which the interference can be made in Ext.P3 order, as the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. It is to be noted that Ext.P3 was passed on 17.08.2024 and the petitioner had submitted this writ petition on 11.09.2024 and thus, the petitioner has approached this Court before the period of limitation for filing the appeal expired.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to submit an appeal, by invoking the statutory remedy, as I do not find any grounds to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that the period from 11.09.2024, the date of filing of this writ petition, till the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for submitting the appeal.
Sd/-
