2023 (8) TMI 1213 - HC - GST

Excess Input Tax Credit - due process of law of affording reasonable opportunity and proper scrutiny of record were not made - non-availing of alternative remedy of appeal u/S 107 of GST Act - HELD THAT - It is noticeable from the petition as well as the amended petition that para 3 which concerns details of remedies exhausted declares that petitioner has availed all the statutory other remedies available in law. Whereas the reality is, and this fact is not denied by petitioner, that remedy of appeal has not been availed. More so petitioner has approached this Court after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the said statutory appeal, which gives an impression that this petition has been filed to avoid obstacle of expired period of limitation. Petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders passed under section 74 of MPSGST/CGST Act, 2017 and attachment of bank account to secure the demand.

Impugned Orders under Section 74 of MPSGST/CGST Act, 2017:
The petition challenged the impugned orders issued under section 74 of the MPSGST/CGST Act, 2017, demanding Rs. 1,01,11,999/- towards excess Input Tax Credit Availed, Rs. 33,12,811/- towards interest, and Rs. 1,01,11,999/- towards penalty, totaling Rs. 2,35,36,809/-. Another order attached the petitioner's bank account to secure the demand.

Grounds of Challenge:
The primary ground of challenge was the alleged failure to afford a reasonable opportunity and conduct proper scrutiny of records as per due process of law.

Contentions of the Parties:
The Revenue objected to the petitioner's contentions, arguing that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Exhaustion of Remedies:
The petitioner claimed to have exhausted all statutory remedies available in law, although it was revealed that the remedy of appeal had not been pursued within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner's delayed approach to the Court suggested an attempt to circumvent the expired period of limitation.

Dismissal of Petition:
Despite various grounds raised regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity, the Court declined to delve into those issues. The petition was ultimately dismissed due to the petitioner providing incorrect information in a crucial paragraph of the petition.

Conclusion:
The petition challenging the impugned orders under section 74 of the MPSGST/CGST Act, 2017 and the attachment of the bank account was dismissed by the Court, citing the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time limit. No costs were awarded in the matter.