Dhanyamol (Prop: Abhinaya Digital Solutions) Vs State Tax Officer

The writ petition challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act was dismissed by the High Court. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's substantial delay of over two years in approaching the Court and their failure to utilize statutory appellate remedies against the underlying rejection of their GST TRAN-1 application, which was deemed validly served through the web portal.

Summary of Facts and Dispute:

1. Impugned Action: An order (Ext.P4) was passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act on 28.12.2023, demanding an amount consequent to the rejection of the petitioner's GST TRAN-1 application, which sought input tax credit of excise duty on closing stock held on 30.06.2017.
2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the GST TRAN-1 application was rejected without being afforded an opportunity of being heard, and they were unaware of the Section 73 order (Ext.P4) as they had not received any intimation, only becoming aware upon receipt of Ext.P5.
3. Core Question of Law: Whether a writ petition challenging a Section 73 order is maintainable when filed after more than two years from the date of the order, particularly when the order's uploading on the web portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, and no appeal was filed against the rejection of the GST TRAN-1 application.

Key Legal Issues & Findings:

Validity of Service of Order and Delay in Challenging

The Court considered the statutory provisions governing the service of orders under the CGST Act, particularly Section 169, and the implications of delay.

• Valid Service: The Court noted that as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, uploading an order on the web portal is treated as valid service of notice, a fact upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
• Unawareness Claim: The petitioner's claim of not being aware of Ext.P4 until receiving Ext.P5 was deemed insufficient given the valid service on the portal.
• Effect of Delay: The writ petition was submitted after more than two years from the date of issuance of Ext.P4, despite Ext.P4 specifically addressing the dismissal of the GST TRAN-1 application.
• Failure to Appeal: The petitioner failed to challenge Ext.P4 by filing a statutory appeal within the prescribed period.
• Lack of Justifiable Reason: The Court found no justifiable reasons to entertain the writ petition due to the petitioner's significant delay and lapses in invoking statutory or constitutional remedies for over two years.

Ruling:

1. Outcome: The writ petition is dismissed.
2. Directions: No specific directions were issued to the officer, as the petition was dismissed on grounds of delay and non-invocation of statutory remedies.
3. Liberty: No specific liberty was granted to the Revenue, as the petition was dismissed.