2024 (1) TMI 569 - HC - GST

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

Peter Tyres Represented by its Proprietor V. Peter Versus The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Cuddalore, O/o. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging input tax credit claim rejection. Court found statutory remedy available and provided ample ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Rejection of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- The impugned order contains a detailed narration of the facts. The legal provisions relating to input tax credit are also reproduced therein. Thereafter, the respondent has set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that input tax credit was refused because of the failure of the petitioner to file the return within the period prescribed by statute. Significantly, the impugned order takes into account the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and it is evident that said order was issued after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised - this writ petition is not entertained in light of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner - petition dismissed. 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.