2022 (1) TMI 999 - HC - GST

Input tax credit - bogus firms - it is alleged that M/s. Vinayak Traders has not been found at the business place and the dealer and purchaser has claime the ITC wrongly - HELD THAT - Without fail, the representations made by the petitioner shall be decided within a period of two (2) weeks. There is nothing further that needs to be added to what he has done earlier. Once the same is decided, if dissatisfied, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take legal recourse available under the law - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks writs to quash blocking of input tax credit.
2. Non-response from authorities regarding representations made.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Petitioner seeks writs to quash blocking of input tax credit
The petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by the nonresponse from the respondents regarding the blocking of input tax credit amounting to &8377; 13,35,021 on 15.02.2021. The prayers sought by the petitioner included writs of mandamus to quash the action of blocking the credit, allowing the utilization of the credit, and permitting the credit in the electronic ledger for tax payments. An ex-parte ad interim relief was also requested. The Court noted the chronology of events and representations made by the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of response from the authorities despite repeated requests. The respondent issued a show cause notice mentioning discrepancies in claiming input tax credit, leading to proceedings under Section 74. The Court directed that the representations made by the petitioner should be decided within two weeks, and if unsatisfied, the petitioner could seek legal recourse.

Issue 2: Non-response from authorities regarding representations made
The Court heard the advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, who admitted the lack of response to the petitioner's requests. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the petitioner's representations promptly and directed that the decisions on the representations should be made within a specific timeframe. The Court highlighted the petitioner's right to pursue legal remedies if not satisfied with the outcome of the decisions on the representations. The order was to be communicated to the Assistant Government Pleader for further action and compliance.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's grievances regarding the blocking of input tax credit and the lack of response from the authorities. It emphasized the need for timely decisions on the representations made by the petitioner and the option to seek legal recourse if necessary. The Court's directive aimed to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner.