2022 (3) TMI 1305 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - appropriate forum - Availment of excess input tax credit - It is argued by the Petitioner that the mismatch is on account of typographical error committed by the official of the proprietorship concerned - opportunity to rectify the error provided or not - HELD THAT - The proper forum for the Petitioner would be to approach the Appellate Authority rather than invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to file Appeal under Section 107 of the OGST Act with a application for condonation of delay and if filed within a period of four weeks from today, the question of limitation shall not be pressed by the revenue keeping in view that the Petitioner was prosecuting its case in this Court and also the order(s) of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders under Section 73 of the OGST Act for multiple tax periods, legality of excess input tax credit demand, typographical error defense, jurisdiction under Article 226, availability of statutory remedy under Section 107, limitation period, attachment of bank account, withdrawal of attachment orders, filing appeal with condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The Petitioner contested the orders passed under Section 73 of the OGST Act for various tax periods, alleging a demand for excess input tax credit totaling significant amounts. The Petitioner argued that the alleged mismatch was due to a typographical error made during return filing and requested the court's intervention under Article 226 to direct reconciliation by the Revenue Authority.

The Addl. Standing Counsel for the CT & GST organization opposed this direction, citing that the assessing officer had completed the assessment under Section 73, making it inappropriate to issue a writ of mandamus at this stage. The Counsel highlighted the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the OGST/CGST Act for the Petitioner to appeal the assessment order.

Both parties acknowledged the statutory remedy, but the Petitioner pointed out that the limitation period for filing an appeal had lapsed due to pursuing the case in court. However, the Petitioner's argument was supported by an order from the Supreme Court protecting the limitation period, which the CT & GST organization did not object to.

After considering the arguments and records, the Court directed the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 for filing an appeal with an application for condonation of delay within four weeks. The Court assured that the question of limitation would not be pressed by the revenue, considering the circumstances of the case and the Supreme Court's order.

Regarding the attachment of the Petitioner's bank account for the assessment periods, the Court noted that one attachment order was rectified, while the others remained in effect. The Court declined to interfere with the remaining attachment orders, stating that they should be reviewed by the assessing officer or competent authority upon the Petitioner meeting statutory requirements, including predeposit for appeal filing.

With these directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of, and the Court ordered the issuance of an urgent certified copy as per rules.