The Orissa High Court, in the light of another constructive method available to the petitioner, had declined to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for reassessment when the assessee had failed to register in the common Goods and Services Tax (GST) Portal within the stipulated statutory time limit.
In addition to the failure to enrol, the petitioner had failed to submit the appeal as well within the given time limit.
The appellant filed a writ petition requesting reversing the demand raised by the authority under Annexures-7 and 8 series regarding the payment made through statutory return form GSTR-3B under Annexure-5 series.
K.R. Choudhury, advocate for the appellant, argued that though the petitioner had paid the money, the authority had raised a demand for 2017–18 by issuing DRC–07 on 18.10.2019, which had been revised by an order dated 17.03.2020, for which the appellant claimed he was not responsible.
It was submitted that, vide notice dated 17.03.2020 applicable to 2018-19 under Annexure-8 series the demand has been raised vide assessment order dated 29.07.2021 in accordance to the notice dated 17.03.2020 issued under Section 63 of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act.
The applicant brought to the notice of the court, the assessment order on 29.7.2021 and questioned that the applicant has a provisional ID for enrollment on the common portal, however, the council assessed on the grounds of the provisional ID which the applicant was unaware.
Sunil Mishra who is the revenue representative questioned that the demand was sought for 2017-18 vide Annexure-7 on 17.03.2020 and for 2018-19 vide Annexure-8 on 29.07.2021, however, the applicant has questioned that in 2023. Hence it was furnished to be grossly banned by limitation under Section 107 of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act in order to get entertained in such a writ petition.
The revenue requested that the petition be dismissed, arguing that even though the authority’s order of assessment is appealable, the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing the current writ petition after a long period of time—more than two years—which was unsupportable.
“if the contention of the petitioner, that he has already paid the demands raised by the authority is accepted, then it is the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the authority concerned indicating that the demands raised are erroneous and, as such, in view of the dues already paid vide Annexure 5 series, the demand notices be rectified.” bench witnessed.
The applicant waited for 3 years rather than executing that and post to that he approached this court contending the assessment orders issued via the council dated 17.03.2020 for 2017-18 and 29.07.2021 for 2018-19. The Division Bench of Justice B R Sarangi and Justice M S Raman dismissing the petition witnessed that “the assessment order is very clear that the petitioner has been issued with a provisional ID for enrolment on the common portal, but he has failed to enrol on the common portal.”
|Case Title||M/s Sourav Satapathy vs Commissioner of CT & GST|
|Case No.||W.P (C) No. 12455 of 2023|
|Counsel for Appellant||Mrs K.R. Choudhury|
|Counsel for Respondent||Mr Sunil Mishra|
|Orissa High Court||Read Order|