Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Assessee is not entitled to avail the remedy under writ petition when detailed order is passed by the Revenue Department

Bimal jain
Company's ITC Claim Dismissed Due to Late Filing; Court Upholds Revenue Department's Detailed Order Citing Statutory Remedy Available The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a company against a Revenue Department order rejecting its Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim. The court noted that the order was detailed, considering the company's response to a Show Cause Notice and providing a personal hearing. The rejection was due to the company's failure to file returns within the statutory period. The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, emphasizing the availability of a statutory remedy, thus dismissing the petition. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PETER TYRES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR V. PETER VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST & EXCISE, CUDDALORE, O/O. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE - 2024 (1) TMI 569 - MADRAS HIGH COURTdismissed the writ petition as the Hon’ble High Cout is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain the writ petition as due to availability of statutory remedy with the Petitioner.

Facts:

Peter Tyres (“the Petitioner”) has filed writ petition against the Order-in-Original dated November 29, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”), passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) wherein the Petitioner claim for Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) was rejected. The Petitioner further stated that, he was unable to claim ITC due to defects in the form of return provided under the statute.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of writ petition when detailed order is passed by the Revenue Department?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PETER TYRES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR V. PETER VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST & EXCISE, CUDDALORE, O/O. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE - 2024 (1) TMI 569 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held as under:

  • Opined that, the Impugned Order contains a detailed narration of facts and legal provisions pertaining to ITC have been reproduced therein.
  • Further Opined that, as per the Impugned Order, ITC was refused because the Petitioner failed to file the return within the period prescribed under the statute. Also, the Impugned Order takes into consideration the Petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice, and the Impugned Order was passed after granting the opportunity of a personal hearing to the Petitioner.
  • Held that, the Hon’ble High Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain the writ petition as due to availability of statutory remedy with the Petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles