9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1420 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Denial of input tax credit on invoices issued by various registered persons - HELD THAT - In ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that when the writ petitioner has statutory alternative remedy available and do not avail such remedy within the statutory period as prescribed the writ Court should exercise self-restrain and not entertain such writ petition. As there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner in the present case the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the proper forum. Petition disposed off.
Summary of the Judgement:
In the case before the Calcutta High Court, the petitioners, represented by Mr. Ankit Kanodia and others, challenged an order denying their input tax credit (ITC) under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The denial was based on the assertion that the suppliers were unregistered, non-existent, or not conducting business at the registered address. The petitioners argued that they had verified the suppliers' existence and conducted transactions through legitimate channels. The State's counsel argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available through an appellate authority. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & ors. Vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Limited* (2020) 19 SCC 681, the court noted that when a statutory alternative remedy is available, the writ court should not entertain the petition. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to seek redress through the proper appellate forum. The writ petition, WPA 23741 of 2024, was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all parties were instructed to act on the server copy of the order.
|
