2022 (7) TMI 343 - HC - GST

Seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass order on the petition/application, within the time as stipulated by this Court - input tax credit - Section 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - If at all the petitioner is aggrieved and got merits and substance, he has to produce the relevant records and reply to the show cause notice, wherein he would be given a personal hearing, where he can appear along with the documents, satisfy the authorities. If the contention of the petitioner is reasonable, the same would be accepted, otherwise, further action it would be taken. The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the petitioner about the outcome of the same - the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus seeking direction to consider and pass order on petition/application under Section 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 within stipulated time.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass an order on the petition/application dated 12.05.2022 under Section 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 within the time stipulated by the Court. The petitioner's grievance was related to an application made to the first respondent for input credit for extended days as per Section 140(5) of the Act. The second respondent had issued a show cause notice disallowing credit for 20 invoices, amounting to Rs.23,71,301, on the grounds that the entries were not made from the appointed date of 01.07.2017, making the petitioner ineligible for input credit.

According to the petitioner, Section 140(5) allows for an initial thirty-day period for taking credit, with the possibility of an extended period for another thirty days. The disallowed credit pertained to the second period, and the petitioner claimed entitlement to the credit. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice issued after three years was improper, and the first respondent should consider the representation to render the notice irrelevant. The respondents' counsel contended that the petition was premature at the show cause notice stage, advising the petitioner to respond to the notice with relevant records for a personal hearing to present their case.

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without costs, instructing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within three weeks and communicate the outcome. It clarified that the pendency of the representation would not impede the second respondent from proceeding with the show cause notice for further action. The judgment balanced the petitioner's request for timely consideration with the procedural requirements of responding to the show cause notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before any further action is taken.