2024 (8) TMI 249 - HC - GST

Maintainability of writ petition - availability of statutory remedy of filing an appeal - Refund of ITC - HELD THAT - Even though, a Special Appeal is pending before this Court in a case relating to the writ petition, but the cause of action in the said Special Appeal is different. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the orders impugned. It is directed that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal of the petitioner on its merits as the petitioner has spent valuable time in pursuing the writ petition filed mistakenly before this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of statutory remedy of filing an appeal under section 107.
2. Claim for Input Tax Credit refund and the validity of the show cause notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation.
3. Discrepancy in the amount claimed for refund compared to a previous case.
4. Direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned orders.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the writ petition
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari quashing an order and a show cause notice related to Input Tax Credit refund. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, citing the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under section 107. The petitioner argued that a similar claim for refund is pending before the court in a Special Appeal, but the court found the cause of action in the Special Appeal to be different. The court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned orders.

Issue 2: Claim for Input Tax Credit refund
The petitioner, a manufacturer and exporter of garments registered under GST, claimed an Input Tax Credit refund for a specific period. The application for refund was acknowledged, but a show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation. The petitioner's explanation was not considered before the impugned order was passed. The court noted the discrepancy in the handling of the claim and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appellate authority for a proper consideration of the appeal.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in the amount claimed for refund
A discrepancy arose regarding the amount claimed for refund compared to a previous case. The court observed that the earlier case involved a different period and a higher amount of refund claimed. In the present case, the petitioner claimed a refund for a different period and a lower amount. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to address this discrepancy before the appellate authority for a thorough review of the claim.

Issue 4: Direction to approach the appellate authority
Considering the circumstances and the mistaken filing of the writ petition before the court, the judgment directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned orders. The court highlighted the importance of the appellate authority considering the appeal on its merits, acknowledging the petitioner's efforts and time spent on the mistaken filing. The judgment aimed to ensure a proper review of the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit refund through the appropriate legal channels.