2019 (12) TMI 1161 - HC - GST

Debiting amount into the input tax credit - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the writ petition does not have any merits at this juncture for the reason that, during the course of argument, it is revealed that the petitioner was fully aware of the show-cause notice issued to him on 11.06.2019 and the said notice was uploaded in the online portal, in-spite of being aware of the show-cause notice proceedings drawn by the respondents, the petitioner did not respond to the same. Subsequently, the respondents have also uploaded the order on 27.07.2019, which is an order in pursuance to the show-cause notice proceedings initiated. The petitioner also has not been able to show any effort made by them to obtain the copy of the order 27.07.2019 so as to challenge the same nor making any effort in giving reply to the show cause notice at the first instance inspite of being in full knowledge of the same. This Court for the reason that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available to him in-accordance with law under Section 107 and not availing the same promptly or within a reasonable period and subsequently filing the present writ petition only after the order dated 27.07.2019 was acted upon. This Court is of the view that the writ petition would not be maintainable at this juncture. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to debiting amount into input tax credit, Quashment of order dated 27.07.2019 and show cause notice validity.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents debiting an amount into the input tax credit and sought quashment of the order dated 27.07.2019 and the show cause notice issued on 11.06.2019. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the show-cause notice and the subsequent order uploaded on the online portal but did not respond or challenge them. The petitioner failed to utilize the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017, in a timely manner.

2. The court found that the petitioner did not make any effort to obtain a copy of the order dated 27.07.2019 to challenge it, nor did the petitioner reply to the show cause notice despite being fully aware of it. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy promptly instead of filing the writ petition only after the order was acted upon. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at that stage.

3. The court dismissed the writ petition while reserving the petitioner's right to challenge the order dated 27.07.2019 before the appellate authority if the law permits. The judgment highlighted the importance of availing statutory remedies promptly and following due process before seeking judicial intervention. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to engage with the show cause notice proceedings and the subsequent order in accordance with the statutory provisions.