2026-VIL-897-KER

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Appellate remedy - Petitioner claimed it could not contest the assessment proceedings properly due to difficulties arising from fraudulent activities of a partner, health issues of another partner and having entrusted the entire matter to its lawyer - Petitioner seeks writ petition relief for setting aside the orders and for giving an opportunity to challenge the orders - HELD – The statutory assessment orders issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act can be challenged only through the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act and not through writ petition. The mere execution of a vakalathnama in favour of a lawyer and entrusting the entire matter to the lawyer does not absolve the petitioner of the responsibility to track and monitor the proceedings. It is the petitioner's responsibility to track notices uploaded in the web portal and to intimate the lawyer about the hearing dates so that the lawyer can conduct the hearing and contest the matter. The responsibility for tracking notices and communicating with the lawyer lies with the petitioner and not with the lawyer. Once notices are uploaded in the web portal accessible to the petitioner, such uploading constitutes valid and sufficient service under the CGST Act. The petitioner failed to intimate the lawyer about the hearing dates or about the uploaded order, which was the petitioner's obligation. In such circumstances, there are no justifiable reasons to entertain the writ petition and the petitioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the statutory appellate remedy by filing a writ petition – The writ petition is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page