2022 (5) TMI 451 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Input Tax Credit - reversal of ITC on the ground that the petitioner's claim for input tax credit for the purchase from the sellers who are no more sellers or not registered with the authorities concerned, and therefore on that basis the input tax credit could not have been claimed - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT - This aspect, whether the claim made by the petitioner that the input tax credit is a correct one or it is a wrong claim as decided by the Revenue, ie., the Assessing Officer, is necessarily a matter on merits and factual matrix, which has to be gone into only by the appellate authority before whom the petitioner dealer can very well file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act - Here in the case in hand, no violation of principles of natural justice is noticed, as the respondent Revenue had issued notice in DRC01A to the registered place of business of the petitioner and in fact, on receipt of the notice, the petitioner has given a reply and produced the documents on 30.12.2021. This case cannot be construed as if that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or it is infirm due to want of jurisdiction or violation of the statutory provision - If none of these circumstances is available, no writ petition can be entertained as there is a statutory appeal remedy which is efficacious one also. Without exhausting the same since the petitioner has straight away approached this Court by filing this writ petition, this writ petition cannot be entertained. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders rejecting input tax credit claimed by petitioner. Compliance with GST Act and principles of natural justice. Violation of principles of natural justice. Jurisdiction of appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned orders dated 07.07.2021 and 08.07.2021, where the input tax credit claimed was rejected. The petitioner alleged that the rejection was based on incorrect grounds related to the sellers' registration status, which the petitioner disputed. The matter was to be heard on merits.

2. The court noted that the correctness of the input tax credit claim was a matter of factual inquiry to be determined by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court emphasized that this determination required a detailed examination of the factual matrix, which was beyond the scope of the present writ petition.

3. It was observed that the respondent Revenue had issued a notice to the petitioner, who had responded and provided documents, indicating no violation of principles of natural justice. The court found no basis to conclude that the impugned orders were passed in violation of natural justice or lacked jurisdiction, as the statutory appeal remedy under the GST Act was available.

4. Since the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy and directly approached the court through the writ petition, the court declined to entertain the petition. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appellate authority as per the law. The registry was instructed to return the original impugned orders to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the court's reasoning, and the ultimate decision to dismiss the writ petition while directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy available under the GST Act.