TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f cement and is registered under the GST Act and has paid appropriate taxes. The petitioner had filed the returns for the relevant period 2019-20 in Form GSTR-3B, GSTR-9 and GSTR-1. However, during the course of audit it was noticed inter alia that the petitioner has availed credit in respect of transactions wherein payments have not been made within 180 days and thus hit by the second proviso to Section 16(2)(d) of the GST Act. It was also found that the petitioner had extended corporate guarantees and the same has been treated as taxable supplies liable to tax during the relevant period. The petitioner had in response submitted its objection vide reply dated 27.10.2023, 01.12.2023, 11.03.2024, 27.03.2024, 26.06.2024, 14.08.2024 and 22.08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Constitution. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents submitted by the petitioner were rejected on the premise that the tax payer had however not furnished the ageing report vendor wise despite the officer having sought for the same specifically during the course of the hearing on 08.07.2024. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: "The reply filed by the taxpayer has been examined carefully and the following observations are made: 1. The taxpayer has furnished only the state wise break up and break up for Tamil Nadu only. He has not furnished the full creditors list for Rs. 184,63,10,439/- relating to Tamil Nadu out of which a sum of Rs. 124,57,02,491.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.10.2023, it is up to the petitioner to come forward and let in evidence which would support their case that the claim of Input Tax Credit is in fact eligible instead admittedly the petitioners have only furnished sample copies of transaction. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that even during the course of the audit that the petitioners were required to furnish the ageing report, which the petitioners failed to produce until the order of adjudication was made. 8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that adequacy or inadequacy of evidence is something this Court should not examine and the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that this is a matter which ought to be relegated bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised...." (ii) State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 : "A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establ....