2023 (7) TMI 875 - HC - GST

Availment of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) - contravention of the provisions of Section 16 (2) (c) of the CGST Act - time period prescribed under Section 107 (4) of the CSGT Act to challenge the impugned orders by way of a statutory appeal has lapsed - HELD THAT - There is wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner because it has failed to submit the ASMT 10 form on time, avail the benefit of getting the alleged error rectified under Section 39 (9) of the CGST Act and has not challenged the impugned orders in appeal. Without taking recourse to the above statutory remedies, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders in the writ petition, that too after a year. Although there is no time period prescribed in the Constitution of India to file a writ petition, it is trite that a writ petition is to be filed within a reasonable time. What the petitioner has failed to do directly through a statutory remedy cannot be permitted to be done indirectly through a writ petition, that too at its own sweet will and pleasure. This Court is not impressed with the excuse put forth by the petitioner that because its statutory remedy is time-barred, this Court may exercise its discretionary powers and reexamine the impugned orders. A Constitutional Court is not an open Forum to be approached at the whims and caprice of a litigant. This Court s extraordinary power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. There are no circumstances in the present case to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to proceedings passed under the GST Act regarding the availing of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) by a partnership firm engaged in the supply of plastic tubes and fittings.

Summary:

Issue 1: Availing of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC)
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, was alleged to have availed excess ITC in contravention of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the error occurred due to inadvertence while filing GSTR 3B and had already reversed the excess ITC amount. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 GST Form B to rectify the error, but the second respondent issued a revenue recovery notice. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were passed without proper scrutiny and sought to quash the orders.

Issue 2: Remedies and Time-barred appeal
The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to submit the ASMT 10 form and rectify the errors within the stipulated time under the CGST Act. The respondents contended that the impugned orders were appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, but the remedy was time-barred. The Court found wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner for not availing statutory remedies and challenging the orders in appeal within the prescribed time. The Court emphasized the importance of filing a writ petition within a reasonable time and declined to entertain the petition due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory remedies.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's failure to utilize statutory remedies cannot be remedied through a writ petition filed after the prescribed time. The Court highlighted that its extraordinary powers are to be sparingly exercised and found no exceptional circumstances to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.