GSTIN mismatch and delayed tax payment: writ relief declined, penalties sustained, and statutory appeal left open.

Disputed input tax credit based on a mismatch in GSTIN particulars in the supplier's invoices was treated as a factual issue, so writ interference was declined and the taxpayer was left to pursue the statutory appeal with supporting confirmation from the supplier. For short payment and belated remittance of tax, the taxpayer had admitted the default but paid tax and interest only after the show-cause notice; because payment was not made within the prescribed thirty-day period, the statutory protection from penalty was held inapplicable. The penalties and interest were therefore sustained, and writ relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether denial of input tax credit on account of mismatch in GSTIN particulars in the supplier's invoices was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the penalties and interest imposed for short payment and belated remittance of tax were unsustainable, including the claimed benefit under the proviso relating to payment within the prescribed period after notice.

Issue (i): whether denial of input tax credit on account of mismatch in GSTIN particulars in the supplier's invoices was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The discrepancy in the GST number shown in the supplier's invoices was accepted as a factual issue. The petitioner was left at liberty to obtain suitable confirmation from the supplier to establish that the sales were in fact made to it and to place the material before the appellate authority. The existence of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 also weighed against writ interference on this disputed factual aspect.

Conclusion: The denial of input tax credit was not interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the penalties and interest imposed for short payment and belated remittance of tax were unsustainable, including the claimed benefit under the proviso relating to payment within the prescribed period after notice.

Analysis: The petitioner had admitted the short payment in the belated return but paid the tax only later, and interest was remitted after issuance of the show-cause notice. As the tax and interest were not paid within thirty days of the notice, the statutory protection against penalty under Section 73(8) was held inapplicable. The Court also held that the petitioner could not avoid the consequences of its own delayed compliance.

Conclusion: The penalties and interest were sustained and no relief was granted on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held not fit for interference and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where disputed GST credit issues and delayed tax compliance are involved, and the tax with interest is not paid within the statutory period after notice, writ relief is ordinarily declined and the statutory penalty consequences remain enforceable.

---