GST Input Tax Credit Denied After Show Cause Notice for Purchases from Non-Existent Dealer Under Section 16(2)(c)

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice and ex-parte order disallowing Input Tax Credit allegedly availed from a non-existent dealer. The petitioners claimed the order lacked proper reasoning and requested remand for reconsideration. Respondents argued the credit was rightfully disallowed under Section 16(2)(c) of Jharkhand GST Act and highlighted the availability of statutory appeal under Section 107. The petition was ultimately withdrawn with liberty to pursue the alternative remedy, with the court not examining the merits of the case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under GST Act, challenge to ex-parte order under Jharkhand GST Act, maintainability of writ petition.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a show cause notice under the GST Act and an ex-parte order under the Jharkhand GST Act. The petitioners sought writs of Certiorari to quash the show cause notice and the order, claiming pre-judgment by the authorities. The petitioners argued that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and did not consider their explanation and supporting documents regarding Input Tax Credit availed. They requested the court to remand the matter for reconsideration by the Assessing Authority.

The respondents contended that the Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioners from a non-existent dealer was rightly disallowed under Section 16(2)(c) of the Jharkhand GST Act. They argued that the Assessing Authority, after due consideration, rejected the petitioner's explanation and disallowed the credit. The respondents highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the JGST Act, citing a recent Supreme Court judgment supporting the requirement for assessee to exhaust such remedies. They emphasized the limited circumstances under which a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, such as fundamental rights breach, natural justice violation, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to statutory provisions.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel requested to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, clarifying that they did not delve into the merits of the case. The court allowed the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal procedure as provided by law, indicating that the door for seeking redressal through the proper appellate channel remained open for the petitioners.

---