Court dismisses petition challenging tax credit debit, emphasizes timely remedy pursuit.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the debiting of an amount into input tax credit and seeking quashment of an order and show cause notice. The petitioner failed to respond or challenge the notice and order in a timely manner, not utilizing statutory remedies. The court emphasized the importance of availing remedies promptly before seeking judicial intervention, holding the petition not maintainable. The petitioner was reserved the right to challenge the order before the appellate authority if permissible by law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to debiting amount into input tax credit, Quashment of order dated 27.07.2019 and show cause notice validity.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents debiting an amount into the input tax credit and sought quashment of the order dated 27.07.2019 and the show cause notice issued on 11.06.2019. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the show-cause notice and the subsequent order uploaded on the online portal but did not respond or challenge them. The petitioner failed to utilize the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017, in a timely manner.

2. The court found that the petitioner did not make any effort to obtain a copy of the order dated 27.07.2019 to challenge it, nor did the petitioner reply to the show cause notice despite being fully aware of it. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy promptly instead of filing the writ petition only after the order was acted upon. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at that stage.

3. The court dismissed the writ petition while reserving the petitioner's right to challenge the order dated 27.07.2019 before the appellate authority if the law permits. The judgment highlighted the importance of availing statutory remedies promptly and following due process before seeking judicial intervention. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to engage with the show cause notice proceedings and the subsequent order in accordance with the statutory provisions.

---