Tax Credit Refund Claim Rejected Due to Procedural Flaws, Petitioner Advised to Pursue Appellate Remedies Under Proper Channels

HC addressed a tax credit refund dispute, finding procedural irregularities in the tax authority's handling of the petitioner's claim. The court directed the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies, emphasizing the need to resolve discrepancies in the refund claim through proper administrative channels. The petition was disposed of, with instructions for the appellate authority to examine the matter comprehensively.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in issuance of refund/Input Tax Credit order.
2. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition.
3. Discrepancy in the claim for Input Tax Credit refund.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order and show cause notice related to the refund of Input Tax Credit for the period from September 2019 to January 2020. The petitioner argued that under section 54(7) of the Central GST Act, 2017, the refund order should have been issued within sixty days. However, a show cause notice was issued after nearly four years, followed by an order without any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that this violated statutory provisions. The court noted the delay and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned orders, emphasizing that the appellate authority should consider the appeal on its merits.

2. The counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing section 107 which provides a statutory remedy for filing an appeal. The petitioner's counsel argued that a similar claim for Input Tax Credit refund was pending before the court in a different case. The court acknowledged the existence of a Special Appeal related to a previous writ petition but emphasized that the cause of action in the Special Appeal was different. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority.

3. Another issue raised was the discrepancy in the claim for Input Tax Credit refund. The respondent's counsel highlighted that in a previous appeal, the period and amount of refund claimed were different from the current petition. The appellate authority had allowed a refund of Rs. 1,84,17,252 in the previous case, while the current petition sought a refund of Rs. 1,86,40,537 for a different period and purchases. The court noted this difference and instructed the petitioner to address the discrepancies through the appellate process, ensuring a thorough consideration of the appeal on its merits.

---