2024 (12) TMI 1491 - HC - GST

Challenge to order issued under the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts - certain amounts of input tax credit, which was availed by the petitioner in respect of supplies where the tax has already been discharged by the respective suppliers, has not been considered by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P3 order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner has not made out any case for interference with Ext.P3 order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner has a case that there has been some mistake in Ext.P3 order and as a result of which certain eligible input tax credit with reference to the invoices mentioned in the reply submitted by the petitioner had not been given to him, it is open to the petitioner to file an application for rectification under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Acts. Petition dismissed.

Summary

In the case before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts, arguing that input tax credit was improperly denied despite taxes being discharged by suppliers. The petitioner cited a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.429 of 2024, suggesting the Department should have pursued the suppliers for unpaid taxes rather than denying the petitioner credit. The Court, presided by Justice Gopinath P., held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for interference with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner could seek rectification under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Acts or pursue statutory remedies for any alleged legal errors. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.