Calcutta High Court Directs Petitioner to Approach Appellate Authority Under Section 107 of GST Act for Challenge to Section 63 Assessment Order

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a petitioner challenging an assessment order passed under Section 63 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) must first avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the 2017 Act. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, and expressly left all legal and factual issues open for adjudication by the appellate forum.

Background

The petitioner had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, challenging an order dated 20 February 2025 passed by the GST authority under Section 63 of the 2017 Act. The petitioner contended that she was a registered person under the GST regime since 1 February 2021, and that Section 63, which provides for assessment of unregistered persons, was not applicable to her. The impugned order, however, pertained to the period 2017-2018, i.e., prior to her registration.

The petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction and should be quashed. The respondents, on the other hand, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, submitting that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act.

Core Issue and Submissions

The central issue before the Court was whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedy, and whether the impugned order suffered from an ex facie jurisdictional error justifying interference under writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner relied on her registration status and the language of Section 63 to argue that the assessment was without jurisdiction. The respondents maintained that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority under Section 107, which also has the power to condone delay in filing the appeal if sufficient cause is shown.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the petitioner’s registration under the 2017 Act was not disputed. It observed that Section 63 is intended for assessment of unregistered persons, but the impugned order related to the pre-registration period. The Court held that determining whether pre-registration transactions of a registered person could be assessed under Section 63 would require factual enquiry and adjudication, which is best suited for the appellate authority.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but is a self-imposed restriction. However, where the issue involves factual determination or is not ex facie without jurisdiction, the writ court should ordinarily decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, especially when a statutory remedy exists.

Final Directions

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act within six weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal strictly in accordance with law, including the issue of condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the applicability of Section 63 to the facts of the case, nor had it adjudicated on the merits of the parties’ rival contentions. All issues were expressly left open for the appellate authority to decide.

The judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies under the GST Act before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly where the dispute involves factual issues or questions of jurisdiction that require detailed adjudication.