2021 (8) TMI 512 - HC - GST

Seeking permission to petitioner to debit a sum of ₹ 47,30,457/- form its electronic credit ledger - process of adjudication before the competent authority - seeking to withdraw the blocking of ITC - HELD THAT - Intermittent intervention by the High Courts in a writ proceedings are not desirable, as the same would cause prejudice to the interest of the either of the parties. The petitioner claims that blocking of ITC is erroneous. The show cause notice issued by the Department would reveal that certain allegations are raised against the petitioner. All these aspects require an adjudication based on the documents and evidences to be produced by the respective parties. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to redress their grievances before the competent authorities and this Court cannot issue any such direction as such prayed for, as the proceedings are in progress. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the Department
2. Mismatch between ITC claimed by the petitioner and ITC reflected in GSTR2A
3. Allegations of wrong availment of excess ITC
4. Request for direction to permit debiting of sum from electronic credit ledger

Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the Department:
The petitioner, an authorized signatory of a company providing engineering and construction services, sought relief in a writ petition to direct the respondents to allow debiting a sum from its electronic credit ledger. The Department had blocked the petitioner's ITC of ?47,30,457, proposing to reverse a portion due to alleged mismatches and incorrect availment. Despite the petitioner's detailed representation explaining the errors and requesting withdrawal of the block, there was no response from the authorities.

Mismatch between ITC claimed and ITC reflected in GSTR2A:
A show cause notice issued by the Department highlighted issues such as non-reversal of ITC not reflected in GSTR2A, amounting to ?13,41,543 each for CGST and SGST. The notice stated that the excess ITC wrongly claimed, not available in GSTR2A, must be reversed under the relevant GST Acts. The petitioner's submission for withdrawal of the block and ongoing adjudication of the matter were noted, emphasizing the need for competent authorities to consider all aspects during the process.

Allegations of wrong availment of excess ITC:
The writ petition raised concerns regarding the ongoing adjudication of the matter before the competent authority. The petitioner's representation to withdraw the ITC block was highlighted, indicating the need for authorities to consider all submissions. The Court emphasized that intervention in such matters should be limited to avoid prejudice, urging parties to address grievances through the established procedures and evidentiary submissions.

Request for direction to permit debiting of sum from electronic credit ledger:
The Court concluded that intervening in the ongoing proceedings would not be appropriate, as the matter required adjudication based on evidence and documents. The petitioner was advised to address their concerns before the competent authorities, with a directive for expeditious conclusion of the proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, emphasizing the need for parties to follow due process and allowing authorities to finalize the matter promptly.