2026 (1) TMI 1431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Audit), Navanagar, Bagalkot vide Annexure-K. (2) issue any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner is found to be entitled to." 2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Karnataka Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'KGST Act'). The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing cement and generation of electricity from solar power. The petitioner has two cement manufacturing units, one is at Lokapur and another is at Kaladgi. In the year 2017, the petitioner installed a captive solar electricity power plant in Bisarahalli village of Koppal district. The petitioner has received government order from Government of Karnataka to set up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacturing activities in furtherance of its business. The advance rulings authority has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner and solar plant setup is admissible as electricity generated under 20 megawatt capacity is captively consumed by the petitioner as 10 megawatts solar power plant is also setup by the same assessee under the same GSTN, at the same location, connected to the same grid and the power generated is exclusively transmitted to the same cement plants. In August, 2025, the respondent during the course of its audit for the period of April, 2021 to March, 2022 has observed that the petitioner was ineligible to claim ITC on solar power plant product, insurance and financial services, ineligible on work contr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t contemplates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. It is his argument that, the procedure contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act was not followed by the respondent. It is also submitted that, though there is a remedy available for the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, it is not an effective alternative remedy for the petitioner as the authority who has to grant the advance rulings is superior to the Appellate Authority. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, despite the availability of an alterna....