TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the "said Act") in respect of the tax period July 2017 to March 2022. Records would reveal that on the basis of an audit observation under Section 65 of the said Act, a proceeding under Section 74 was initiated by issuing a notice dated 1st August, 2024 in the Form DRC-01. From the show cause it would transpire that the proposed demand has been made on the following heads:- "2.1. Irregular availment of ITC contravening the provisions of Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 as the supplier did not file GSTR-3B return: 2.2. Irregular availement of ITC (Block Credit) against the invoices related to purchase/repair and maintenance of motor vehicles in violation of Section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017:- 2.3. Irregular availment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the balance-sheet/profit and loss account of the petitioner as amounts which have remained outstanding for more than 180 days, in order to attract the second proviso of Section 16(2) of the said Act, though there being no basis for the same. 3. According to Mr. Saraf, the reflection of the figure against the head of the sundry creditor in the balance sheet/profit and loss account of the petitioner cannot tantamount to an outstanding amount of the sundry creditor beyond 180 days. In the instant case, on the basis of the disclosure made by the petitioner, according to him, except for one particular creditor, namely Unique Safety, there are no other sundry creditors in respect whereof, payment had been made beyond 180 days from the date of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the proper officer and as such notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act, this Hon'ble Court is competent to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Raza Textiles Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 633. In the backdrop as aforesaid he would submit that the order passed by the proper officer dated 4th February, 2025 should be set aside and the matter be remanded back for re-adjudication on the issues noted above. 5. Mr. Kundulia, learned Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondents. While ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the proper officer to consider the claim made by the petitioner that all payments to the sundry creditors were made within the statutory period of 180 days which entitles the petitioner to avail input tax credit. In this context as noted above, I find that upon the audit observation being published in the form ADT-2 dated 13/16th February, 2024, the petitioner had duly filed a response and subsequently after issuance of show cause notice had disclosed a chart so as to contend that except for one particular creditor, in respect of all other creditors payments had been made within the period of 180 days. 9. I find that the aforesaid aspect has duly been considered by the proper officer in paragraph 9.3.3 of the order impugned. I also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction. 11. In the instant case, the exercise of jurisdiction by the authority is not in question. Admittedly, according to the petitioner the order has been partly complied with. What the petitioner seeks to challenge is an error committed by the proper officer while considering the materials on record. I am afraid that this Court cannot enter into such disputed questions in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Saraf in the case of Raza Textiles Ltd (supra) does assist the petitioner. In the said case the Income Tax Officer had by treating the seller firm to be non-resident firm held that the assessee was liable to deduct income tax and pay the Government. On appeal, the appe....