Grievance Mechanism Validated: CGST Act Challenges Reviewed with Right to Further Constitutional Scrutiny of Section 140(3)

HC upheld the grievance redressal mechanism for CGST Act challenges. The Court directed the Nodal officer to review the petitioner's representation and issue a speaking order. Petitioner retains the right to challenge the final determination and question the constitutional validity of Section 140(3) and Rule 117. Writ petition disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a petition seeking to amend the claim by challenging the vires of specific provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. Reference is made to a previous Division Bench decision granting relief to similarly situated petitioners. The Court notes the establishment of a grievance mechanism by the Union of India to address cases where assessees faced difficulties in availing credits. The Court emphasizes the importance of resolving issues through the grievance redressal mechanism and instructs that speaking orders must be passed in case of claim rejections. The petitioners are given liberty to challenge any final determination and to question the constitutional vires if necessary.

The Court, without commenting on the merits, decides to adopt a similar approach in the present writ petition. The representations made by the petitioner to the respondents will be considered by the Nodal officer under the Grievance Redressal Mechanism, who will issue a speaking order. The petitioner retains the right to challenge the order and question the vires of the provisions challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition and the application are disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.

This judgment highlights the significance of utilizing grievance mechanisms for dispute resolution in tax matters and ensures that assessees have the opportunity to challenge decisions and question the validity of statutory provisions. The Court's decision underscores the importance of providing reasons for claim rejections and upholding the rights of petitioners to seek redress through legal avenues.

---