2025 (7) TMI 393 - HC - GST

Writ petition challenging GST show cause notice for excess ITC claims dismissed as premature remedy

Tvl SD Promoters Represented By Its Partner Mr Ramasamy Venkatachalam Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer

The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) regarding excess ITC claims in GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-2A. ... Challenge to SCN issued by the respondent in Form GST DRC-01 dated 25/11/2024 - excess claim of ITC of CGST and SGST Act in Form GSTR-3B when compared with ITC of CGST and SGST available in Form GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is premature in nature, since the matter is only at the stage of show cause notice and as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, the petitioner can very well file their reply along with supportive documents and offer their explanation before the respondent/Authority. Further, this Court would like to point out herein that when a show cause notice is issued, the petitioner is expected to file reply/objection and without responding to the show cause notice and exhausting the available remedies, is not entitled to seek judicial intervention, inasmuch as, a Writ Petition challenging the show cause notice is not maintainable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice that is impugned herein within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered by the respondent and an appropriate orders/decision shall be passed/made in accordance with law. The Madras High Court, through Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the show cause notice issued under Form GST DRC-01 dated 25/11/2024. The petitioner contended that the alleged excess claim of ITC under CGST and SGST in Form GSTR-3B, compared to Form GSTR-2A, arose due to an error by the GST consultant in splitting IGST credits. The respondent argued that the petitioner could file a reply and present their case during the personal hearing before any final decision.The Court held that the petition was premature since the matter was at the show cause notice stage. It emphasized that 'when a show cause notice is issued, the petitioner is expected to file reply/objection and without responding to the show cause notice and exhausting the available remedies, is not entitled to seek judicial intervention,' rendering a writ petition challenging such notice 'not maintainable.' The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a reply within three weeks, which the respondent must consider before passing any order, and dismissed the petition with no costs.