2025 (1) TMI 1068 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - proceeding challenged on the ground that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind to the reply and the material furnished by the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is trite law that Court in exercise of its powers of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not get into disputed question of fact nor examine adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. In the present case it is not conclusive that the Input Tax Credit has been availed only in respect of those supplies in respect of which payments have been made within a period of 180 days from the date of invoice given by the supplier. The above being essentially a question of fact unless shown to be perverse this Court would not interfere but would rather exercise restraint. Further the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is normally not to be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may also be relevant to to refer to the following judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of THANSINGH NATHMAL VERSUS A. MAZID SUPDT. OF TAXES DHUBRI 1964 (2) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide the Court must exercise self- imposed restraint and not entertain the Writ Petition if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. There can be no doubt that even though the High Court can entertain a Writ Petition against any order or direction passed / action taken by the State and / or its authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law. Conclusion - Judicial review under Article 226 should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available particularly in matters involving factual disputes and adequacy of evidence. This is a case where it is appropriate for the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy by way of an appeal. Petition dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment presents the following core issues:

Whether the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) was valid under the GST Act, specifically considering the requirement under the second proviso to Section 16(2)(d) regarding payment within 180 days.
Whether the tax levied on corporate guarantees prior to the issuance of Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST was lawful and within the jurisdiction of the tax authorities.
Whether the High Court should intervene in this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of ITC Claim

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The second proviso to Section 16(2)(d) of the GST Act mandates that ITC can only be claimed if payment for the supply is made within 180 days from the date of invoice.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide the ageing report vendor-wise, which was specifically requested by the tax authorities to verify compliance with the 180-day payment rule.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner submitted various documents, including audit certificates and bank statements, but did not provide the requested ageing report.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that without the ageing report, it could not conclusively determine compliance with the 180-day rule, thus justifying the tax authority's decision to reverse the ITC.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had complied with the rule and provided sufficient documentation, while the respondent maintained that the lack of an ageing report justified the reversal of ITC.
Conclusions: The court refrained from interfering with the factual determinations made by the tax authorities, suggesting that the petitioner pursue an appeal.

Issue 2: Taxation of Corporate Guarantees

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST clarified that corporate guarantees are taxable only from 27.10.2023 onwards.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the issue of whether the tax on corporate guarantees was lawful before the circular is a matter to be addressed by the appellate authority.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that the levy of tax on corporate guarantees prior to the circular was without jurisdiction and violated Article 265 of the Constitution.
Application of Law to Facts: The court did not make a determination on this issue, suggesting it be resolved through the appellate process.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent contended that this issue should be examined by the appellate authority rather than the High Court.
Conclusions: The court deferred the issue to the appellate authority, indicating that it was not appropriate for judicial review at this stage.

Issue 3: Judicial Review under Article 226

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court cited precedents emphasizing that judicial review under Article 226 should not be used when an adequate alternative remedy is available.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court highlighted that it is not within its purview to assess the adequacy of evidence or resolve factual disputes, which are better suited for the appellate process.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court referenced decisions such as Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar v. District Judge, Varanasi and State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, supporting the principle of restraint in exercising Article 226 jurisdiction.
Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the petitioner should seek redress through the statutory appellate process rather than through a writ petition.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner sought judicial intervention, while the respondent argued for the matter to be addressed by the appellate authority.
Conclusions: The court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue an appeal and excluding the time spent in the writ proceedings from the limitation period for filing an appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court."
Core Principles Established: The court reinforced the principle that judicial review under Article 226 should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available, particularly in matters involving factual disputes and adequacy of evidence.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court declined to interfere with the tax authority's decision on ITC reversal, deferred the issue of corporate guarantee taxation to the appellate authority, and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek an alternative remedy.

← Previous Next →