TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 3. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure A) passed by the Respondent No. 2 and holding that the ITC denied under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act is wrongly classified and fully admissible; & (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to quash and set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailed on the premium paid towards an insurance policy taken from United India Insurance Co. Ltd., covering the stock-in-trade and the business premises of the petitioner. 6. An intimation dated 25.10.2024 in Form DRC-01A under section 73(3) of GGST ACT, 2017 read with CGST ACT 2017 was issued by the respondent No. 2. Subsequently adjudication was initiated and show cause notice in Form DRC-01 under section 73(1) was issued on 13.11.2024. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the demand was primarily based on the disallowance of ITC against the premium paid to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for stock and premises insurance policy which was mistakenly classified as motor vehicle insurance, allegedly falling under the ineligible cat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... motor vehicles, and accordingly applying Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the DRC-07 order, and without affording any further hearing or clarification, the respondent No. 2 initiated coercive recovery by issuing communication to the respondent no. 3 Bank on 09.06.2025 under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act, attaching and withholding a sum of Rs. 1,72,884/- from the petitioner's cash credit Account bearing No. 30677485708 and further directing the respondent no. 3 bank to pay the said sum of amount to Government forthwith. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that that after the impugned order was passed on 07.02.2025, petitioner could have availed the statutory remedy of filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled thereafter. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the insurance policy was taken by the petitioner for securing stock in trade and business premises and not the motor vehicle and therefore, the respondent could not have invoked the provisions of section 17(5)(b) of the GST ACT. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi referred to the provisions of section 17(5) which clearly provides that only in cases where input tax credit has been sought in respect of motor vehicle, credit is not allowable where as in facts of the case, the insurance policy was for stock in trade and premises and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 18. It was submitted that the appellate remedy available to the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he GST Act reads as under: "5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) of section 16 and sub-section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:- [(a) motor vehicles for transportation of persons having approved seating capacity of not more than thirteen persons (including the driver)...." 22. It is clear from the above provision that it is applicable only in cases where input tax credit has been sought in respect of motor vehicle. The findings given by the respondent in the impugned order reads as under: "2.2.3(iii) Findings: On the basis of submission made, and verification carried out of the available facts and information, the findi....