Writ interference with input tax credit notice declined where liability was not finally determined and reply remained available.

A writ challenge to a notice proposing reversal or denial of input tax credit was not entertained because the notice, issued on the footing of alleged invoices from non-existent suppliers and Rule 86-A restrictions, did not finally determine liability; the recipient was left to file a reply and raise all objections before the authority. Writ petitions filed by a resolution professional were closed after the corporate debtor had gone into liquidation and the liquidator did not pursue them. The proceedings therefore ended without adjudication on the substantive tax liability, while preserving the supplier's right to respond through the statutory process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the notice relating to reversal or denial of input tax credit could be interfered with when the impugned notice had not yet finally determined liability. (ii) Whether the writ petitions filed by the resolution professional required to be proceeded with after the corporate debtor had gone into liquidation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the notice relating to reversal or denial of input tax credit could be interfered with when the impugned notice had not yet finally determined liability.

Analysis: The notice proceeded on the basis that the input tax credit had been availed against invoices issued by non-existent suppliers and was traced to the restrictions under Rule 86-A of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In the connected challenge by the supplier, the impugned notice merely informed the recipient about the alleged non-payment and ineligibility of input tax credit and did not itself determine liability finally in either direction. The proper course was to submit a reply to the notice and raise all available objections before the authority.

Conclusion: The notice did not call for interference at this stage and the challenge to it was not entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions filed by the resolution professional required to be proceeded with after the corporate debtor had gone into liquidation.

Analysis: The corporate debtor was already under liquidation and the liquidator had not chosen to pursue the remedies in the two writ petitions filed on its behalf. In that situation, those proceedings were not pressed further and were directed to be closed.

Conclusion: The writ petitions filed by the resolution professional were closed, and the connected challenge by the supplier was dismissed with liberty to reply to the notice.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended without adjudication on the substantive tax liability, while leaving the supplier free to respond to the impugned notice in the statutory process.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere with a notice that has not finally determined liability, and proceedings on behalf of a corporate debtor in liquidation may be closed where the liquidator does not pursue them.

---