Writ Petition Dismissed: Taxpayer Must Pursue Alternative Remedy for Input Tax Credit Dispute Under Section 73 of GST Act

HC dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under Section 73 of CGST/UPGST Act for AY 2017-18 and 2019-2020 on grounds of non-invocation of alternative remedy. The case involved disputed questions of fact regarding invalid input tax credit based on allegedly fake supply of goods. The court directed petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 within three weeks, instructing the appellate authority to entertain it without raising limitation objections if filed within the specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 73 of CGST/UPGST Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2019-2020; Invocation of alternative remedy under Section 107 for filing first appeal.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought to quash the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of CGST/UPGST Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2019-2020. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, contended that the input tax credit availed by the petitioner based on alleged fake and sham supply of goods was invalid and unjust under Section 16 of the GST Act. They highlighted discrepancies in tax deposition and physical movement of goods, leading to the order under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act. The respondents also raised the issue of non-invocation of alternative remedy, stating that the petitioner should have filed a first appeal under Section 107 instead of directly approaching the court.

The petitioner disputed the allegations made by the respondents and argued that the matter involved disputed questions of fact. The court, considering the involvement of factual disputes, directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-invocation of the alternative remedy, emphasizing the importance of following the proper course of action by filing a first appeal before the appellate authority. However, the court provided an opportunity for the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks, ensuring that the appellate authority would entertain the appeal without raising objections regarding limitation, if filed within the specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of non-invocation of the alternative remedy under Section 107 for filing a first appeal. The court allowed the petitioner the opportunity to pursue the proper course of action by filing an appeal within three weeks, ensuring that the appeal would be entertained by the appellate authority without objections regarding limitation.

---