Writ petition maintainable for pure legal questions despite alternative remedy; transitional input tax credit deadline calculated excluding starting date under Section 9 General Clauses Act

Gauhati HC held that writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable despite alternative remedy when raising pure questions of law without disputed facts. Court ruled that transitional input tax credit period of thirty days from appointed day (01.07.2017) should be calculated by excluding the starting date per General Clauses Act Section 9, making deadline 31.07.2017. Petitioner's TRAN invoices entered on 31.07.2017 were within prescribed time limit. Adjudicating Authority's finding that credit was claimed beyond thirty days was legally unsustainable. Petition allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Order-in-Original under Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Order-in-Original under Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017:
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the Order-in-Original dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST & Central Excise, Guwahati, which disallowed transitional credit of Rs. 2,11,508/- claimed under Table 7[b] of TRAN-1 on the basis of two invoices dated 28.06.2017. The respondent authorities objected to the credit claiming it was in contravention of Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates recording invoices in the Books of Accounts within thirty days from the appointed day (01.07.2017). The petitioner argued that the delay was due to a vehicle breakdown during transit and that the entries were made on 31.07.2017, within the prescribed period if the appointed day is excluded as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that the period of thirty days should be calculated by excluding the appointed day, thus making the entries on 31.07.2017 valid. Consequently, the Order-in-Original was quashed.

2. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy:
The respondent argued that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, instead of filing a writ petition. However, the Court noted that the writ petition raised a pure question of law regarding the interpretation of time calculation under Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Citing precedents, the Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition, especially when it involves a pure question of law. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed maintainable and was allowed.

Conclusion:
The Court quashed the Order-in-Original dated 23.11.2023, holding that the petitioner had complied with the provisions of Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, by making the entries within the prescribed period, calculated by excluding the appointed day as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

---