GST Order for Excess ITC Stands as Court Directs Iron Manufacturer to Pursue Statutory Appeal Under Section 107

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST order demanding payment for allegedly availing excess ITC. The petitioner, an iron and steel goods manufacturer, claimed the notices lacked specific allegations, violating natural justice principles. The court ruled the petition lacked merit as the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting writ jurisdiction, noting that statutory remedy through appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act was available. The petitioner was directed to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy instead of invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Section 73(9) of Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel goods, challenged the order demanding payment under "DRC-07" for allegedly availing excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) without proper details provided by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the notice and subsequent show-cause notice lacked specific allegations and charges, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner emphasized the absence of a mechanism to convert provisional credits to final under relevant provisions and suspended GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 forms. The petitioner cited legal cases to support their contentions regarding the inadequacy of the notices issued.

The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy through an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The respondent highlighted the issuance of notices specifying discrepancies in ITC, the petitioner's failure to respond adequately, and the subsequent show-cause notice detailing the tax differences. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of filing an appeal instead of opting for a writ petition challenging the final order.

The court acknowledged the notices issued under Section 61 and Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, leading to the impugned order determining tax liabilities, interest, and penalties. The court emphasized the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 to challenge the adjudicating authority's order. While recognizing exceptions where writ jurisdiction can be invoked, such as fundamental rights breach or natural justice violation, the court found no exceptional circumstances in the present case to entertain the writ petition.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition for lacking substance and directed the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

---