Writ jurisdiction unavailable for private GST grievance over alleged wrongful input tax credit and requested tax action.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the grievance concerned an alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit by a private third party under the CGST regime. The Court found no sufficient public law element to justify extraordinary writ relief, and held that the proper remedy was to approach the competent tax authority by complaint. Directions sought to compel action or an audit under GST provisions were therefore not maintainable in writ proceedings, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained to redress a private grievance relating to alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime, and to compel the tax authorities to take action or conduct audit.

Analysis: The petition was founded on a grievance against a private third party. Even assuming non-compliance with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the grievance did not furnish a basis for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. The proper course was to approach the competent authority by way of complaint, and the facts alleged did not disclose a sufficient public law element warranting mandamus or other writ relief. The requested directions for action and audit under the GST provisions were therefore not maintainable in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 and was dismissed with costs.

---