TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest due from the petitioner are as hereunder :- W.P.No. Assessment Year IGST CGST SGST Total Due ITC as per GSTR-2A 14334/20 2017-2018 27,70,722 37,498 37,498 28,45,718 7,53,528 14341/20 2018-2019 51,89,395 9,73,143 9,73,143 71,35,681 23,46,116 After adjustment of ITC as per GSTR-2A Assessment year NET IGST Due NET CGST Due NET SGST Due Balance Tax Due Interest 2017-2018 2,17,194* 37,498 37,498 20,92,190 6,08,646 2018-2019 37,86,850** 7,21,382 7,21,382 52,29,614 9,71,107 Total 58,04,044 7,58,880 7,58,880 73,21,804 15,79,753 Note:- * Rs.20,17,194/- = Rs. 27,70,722 - Rs.7,53,528 ** Rs.37,86,850/- = Rs.51,89,395 - Rs.14,02,545 Note i.Rs.5,03,522/- [Rs.2,51,761+ Rs. 2,51,761] out of Rs.23,46,116/- available as in ITC in GSTR-2A was set-off against tax liability of Rs.9,73,143/- and Rs.9,73,143/- each against SGST and CGST tax liability. ii.Thus, leaving balance of Rs.18,42,594/- [Rs.23,46,116-5,03,522]. iii.Rs.14,02,545/- alone out of Rs.18,42,594/- was set-off against IGST tax liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the petitioner. 10. Later, the petitioner was issued with another notice dated 23.07.2019 fixing personal hearing citing the earlier demanded notice dated 01.07.2019. A further demand was made for the composite period between April 2018 and March 2019 by including tax liability to the petitioner for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. 11. The petitioner however did not comply with the requirements as the petitioner claimed that he had no money. The petitioner merely asked for further time for filing returns. Meanwhile, the petitioner sent a request for further time to pay tax and file returns pursuant to notice issued on 01.07.2019 under Section 46 of the TNGST Act, 2011 r/w 100 TNGST Rules, 2017. However, the petitioner still failed to pay either the tax or file the returns. Thus, the impugned orders came to be passed on 15.10.2019. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unable to upload Form- GSTR-3B as the petitioner was unable to avail file input tax credit on purchases made. It is further submitted that without allowing the petitioner to avail the proportionate credit on inward supplies, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In paragraph 7, the Court observed thus:- (Thansingh Nathmal case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419], AIR p. 1423) "7. Against the order of the Commissioner an order for reference could have been claimed if the appellants satisfied the Commissioner or the High Court that a question of law arose out of the order. But the procedure provided by the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online Guj 570 : AIR 2015 Guj 97] and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE [Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE, 2013 SCC Online Kar 10432 : (2013) 298 ELT 481]. The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 2005 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and tha....