Input Tax Credit Dispute: Procedural Pathway Confirmed via Statutory Remedy Under Section 107 of CGST Act

HC dismissed writ appeal challenging denial of input tax credit, finding alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act available. Court upheld lower court's order, directing appellant to pursue appeal process and address transaction merits before appellate authority, thereby maintaining procedural propriety and statutory compliance.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to denial of input tax credit, legality and arbitrariness of Ext.P9 order, availability of alternative statutory remedy u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

Summary:
The petitioner appealed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, challenging the denial of input tax credit in Ext.P9 order by the respondent. The appellant raised concerns about the genuineness of transactions of its sister concern and argued that Ext.P9 order was passed without verifying the sister concern's books of accounts, rendering it illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Single Judge noted that the appellant had an alternative remedy through an appeal u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act against Ext.P9 order. Considering the availability of this statutory remedy, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pursue the appeal process.

During the appeal, the appellant's counsel contended that Ext.P9 order was prejudicial as it was issued without verifying the sister concern's books of account, impacting the appellant's ability to prove the correctness of the availed credit. The Court acknowledged this argument but emphasized that such merits could be addressed before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge, stating that the existence of an alternative remedy justified the decision. The Writ Appeal was consequently dismissed.

---