Writ jurisdiction and GST remedies: cancellation challenge and blocked input tax credit were not interfered with during investigation.

Writ intervention against GST registration cancellation was declined because an efficacious statutory remedy for revocation was available under the CGST framework, and the cancellation was based on alleged non-compliance with input tax credit conditions. Interference with the blocking of input tax credit was also refused because it was linked to allegations of fraudulent availment and an ongoing investigation. The Court indicated that the petitioner should pursue the remedy available before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, and no relief was granted in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of a statutory remedy. (ii) Whether the Court should interfere with the blocking of input tax credit communicated by e-mail when the matter formed part of an ongoing investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of a statutory remedy.

Analysis: The cancellation order recorded reasons and was founded on alleged violation of the conditions relating to input tax credit under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The remedy of revocation was available under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. In view of the efficacious statutory remedy, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked to examine the cancellation order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation of registration was not entertained and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should interfere with the blocking of input tax credit communicated by e-mail when the matter formed part of an ongoing investigation.

Analysis: The blocking of input tax credit was connected with allegations of fraudulent availment and recovery action, and the records indicated that investigation was continuing against the concerned recipients and firms. Interference at that stage would amount to interference in the ongoing investigation and was therefore declined. The petitioner was left to pursue the remedy available before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The prayer to interfere with the blocking of input tax credit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and no relief was granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy exists against cancellation of GST registration, and the challenged action is also intertwined with an ongoing tax investigation, writ intervention is ordinarily unwarranted.

---