2025 (3) TMI 667 - HC - GST

Challenge to order issued under Section 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - availment of excess input tax availed by the petitioner - opportunity of hearing was granted or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the impugned order Exhibit-P7 it is evident that petitioner was given opportunities to respond in the form of a show cause notice followed by three reminders. Petitioner is a business establishment carrying on regular business activities. The show cause notice issued in 2024 even if it be only in the portal is a mode of notice prescribed the statute. As a private limited company petitioner cannot feign ignorance of such a notice or the reminder notices which were issued over a period of three months. In such circumstances it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. Conclusion - Failure to avail the opportunity granted is different from failure to grant an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case petitioner cannot agitate that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing. If the opportunity was not availed by the petitioner it is due to its own default. The blame cannot be put upon the respondents. Therefore this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition is dismissed.

Summary

In the case before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning excess input tax availed during the financial year 2019-20. Despite receiving a show cause notice and multiple reminders, the petitioner did not respond or attend the personal hearing. The petitioner later filed a rectification petition, claiming the excess input tax was due to a clerical error, but this was not accepted by the authority.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the petitioner, a business establishment, was given ample opportunity to respond through statutory notices. The Court emphasized that the failure to utilize these opportunities was due to the petitioner's own default, not a lack of opportunity provided by the respondents. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it was not appropriate to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. The petitioner was advised to pursue any available statutory remedies.