2024 (8) TMI 450 - HC - GST

Refund of ITC for purchases made for different period - violation of time period prescribed under Section 54 (7) of the Central GST Act, 2017 for issuance of order in a claim for input tax credit - HELD THAT - Even though a Special Appeal is pending before this Court in a case relating to the writ petition but the cause of action in the said Special Appeal is different. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the orders impugned. It is directed that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal of the petitioner on its merits as the petitioner has spent valuable time in pursuing the writ petition filed mistakenly before this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 01.5.2024 passed by the opposite party no.4
2. Quashing of show cause notice dated 14.03.2024
3. Commanding the refund of Rs. 90,97,998.00
4. Commanding the disbursement of Rs. 90,97,998.00 along with interest

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer and exporter of garments, filed a petition seeking various reliefs, including quashing of an order and a show cause notice related to input tax credit refund. The petitioner claimed input tax credit refund amounting to Rs. 90,97,998/- for the period of February 2020 to March 2020. However, a show cause notice was issued after almost four years, violating the prescribed time period under Section 54(7) of the Central GST Act, 2017.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, suggesting that an appeal under Section 107 was available to the petitioner against the order. The petitioner's counsel argued that a similar claim for input tax credit refund was pending before the court in a different case. The petitioner referred to a previous order where the claim for refund was allowed, but the Department had filed appeals against it.

The court noted that the earlier writ petition and the pending special appeal were based on different causes of action and refund amounts. The court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned orders, emphasizing that the appellate authority should consider the appeal on its merits, as the petitioner had mistakenly pursued the writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.