Taxpayer's Challenge to Input Tax Credit Order Rejected, Directed to Pursue Statutory Appeal Under Section 107

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a CGST order regarding wrongly claimed input tax credit, finding a statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act available. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 20 days, allowing all grounds to be raised, and mandated the appellate authority to address the matter expeditiously.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the availability of statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the petitioner wrongly taking input tax credit.

Availability of Statutory Alternative Remedy:
The Revenue's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Referring to judgments like Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India, it was emphasized that when a statute provides for statutory appeal, it should be availed by the litigating parties. The court found merit in the Revenue's submissions and acknowledged that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is indeed available to the petitioner. Therefore, the court decided not to entertain the petition, but granted the petitioner the liberty to avail the alternative remedy within twenty days, without the issue of limitation hindering the process. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds mentioned in the writ petition, and the appellate authority was directed to address the issue and pass an expeditious order on merits.

Petitioner's Wrong Input Tax Credit:
The writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ratlam, where it was held that the petitioner had wrongly taken input tax credit amounting to Rs. 22,14,230/- for the period 2018-2019, contravening Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017. Despite the petitioner's contentions, the court focused on the availability of the statutory appeal remedy and directed the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available under the law. The petitioner was granted the liberty to address all concerns raised in the writ petition during the appeal process, with the appellate authority instructed to address the issue promptly.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the court recognizing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy for the petitioner. The petitioner was advised to pursue the appeal process within twenty days and raise all relevant grounds during the proceedings. The appellate authority was directed to address the issue of wrongly taken input tax credit and pass an order on merits expeditiously.

---