2024 (1) TMI 569 - HC - GST

Tax Credit Claim Rejected: Statutory Remedy Upheld After Petitioner Fails to File Return Within Prescribed Period

HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging input tax credit claim rejection. Court found statutory remedy available and provided ample ... Exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction - availability of alternative statutory remedy - input tax credit - failure to file return within prescribed period - personal hearingExercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction - availability of alternative statutory remedy - input tax credit - failure to file return within prescribed period - personal hearing - Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to entertain challenge to the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for input tax credit. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner challenged an order-in-original rejecting his claim for input tax credit for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2022. The impugned order records detailed facts, reproduces the legal provisions relating to input tax credit, and states that the claim was refused due to failure to file the statutory return within the prescribed period. The order demonstrates that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was considered and that a personal hearing was granted. In view of the existence of an alternative statutory remedy and the fact that the impugned order was passed after affording opportunity of hearing, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner free to avail the prescribed statutory remedy.Writ petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to pursue the available statutory remedy.Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging refusal of input tax credit is dismissed on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy exists and the impugned order was passed after affording opportunity; petitioner may pursue the statutory remedy. Issues involved: Rejection of input tax credit claim, failure to file return within prescribed period, availability of statutory remedy.Rejection of input tax credit claim: The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their input tax credit claim, contending that they are a registered person under the GST regime and entitled to claim input tax credit for a specific period. They cited defects in the return form as the reason for their inability to claim the credit. The impugned order, after providing ample opportunity and a personal hearing to the petitioner, refused the input tax credit due to the failure to file the return within the statutory period.Statutory remedy available: The respondent, represented by Mr. Ramesh Kutty, pointed out the availability of a statutory remedy in response to the impugned order. It was emphasized that the impugned order was issued only after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and considering their response to the show cause notice. The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition due to the existence of the statutory remedy, and consequently dismissed the petition while allowing the petitioner to avail themselves of the statutory remedy.