Writ petition challenging GST input tax credit rejection dismissed; petitioner directed to pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 first.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging orders rejecting input tax credit under GST Act. The court held that determination of input tax credit claims requires factual inquiry by the appellate authority under Section 107, which was beyond the writ jurisdiction. Finding no violation of natural justice principles, the court directed the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the court. The petition was dismissed without costs, with original impugned orders to be returned to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders rejecting input tax credit claimed by petitioner. Compliance with GST Act and principles of natural justice. Violation of principles of natural justice. Jurisdiction of appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned orders dated 07.07.2021 and 08.07.2021, where the input tax credit claimed was rejected. The petitioner alleged that the rejection was based on incorrect grounds related to the sellers' registration status, which the petitioner disputed. The matter was to be heard on merits.

2. The court noted that the correctness of the input tax credit claim was a matter of factual inquiry to be determined by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court emphasized that this determination required a detailed examination of the factual matrix, which was beyond the scope of the present writ petition.

3. It was observed that the respondent Revenue had issued a notice to the petitioner, who had responded and provided documents, indicating no violation of principles of natural justice. The court found no basis to conclude that the impugned orders were passed in violation of natural justice or lacked jurisdiction, as the statutory appeal remedy under the GST Act was available.

4. Since the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy and directly approached the court through the writ petition, the court declined to entertain the petition. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appellate authority as per the law. The registry was instructed to return the original impugned orders to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the court's reasoning, and the ultimate decision to dismiss the writ petition while directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy available under the GST Act.

---