Meethal Thotty Ahamedali Vs State Tax Officer & Others (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The Kerala High Court dismissed W.P.(C) No. 9901 of 2026 filed by Meethal Thotty Ahamedali, declining to interfere with an order demanding Rs.2,89,932/- towards excess Input Tax Credit for assessment year 2017-2018. The Court found serious lapses and gross delay on the petitioner’s part in pursuing the available remedies.
The petitioner, an assessee under the CGST/SGST Act, challenged the order dated 16.11.2022 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. The proceedings originated with a FORM GST ASMT-10 notice dated 26.06.2020 for the assessment year 2017-2018, which pointed out discrepancies in the returns, including a difference between figures reported in FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-2A. On that basis, excess ITC was alleged to have been availed.
The petitioner sought one month’s time to reply to the ASMT-10 notice but, according to the respondents, did not thereafter submit a reply. A show cause notice dated 17.09.2021 was subsequently issued. The petitioner again did not furnish a proper reply or the details of the invoices. The adjudicating authority thereafter passed the order dated 16.11.2022 demanding Rs.2,89,932/- towards the excess ITC claimed.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that tax had in fact been paid in respect of the transactions. According to the petitioner, the discrepancy arose because the suppliers, after collecting tax along with the value of the supplies, had failed to upload the necessary details relating to payment with the statutory authorities. The petitioner subsequently obtained certificates from the suppliers, marked as Exts.P5 to P11, certifying that the suppliers had paid tax in respect of the transactions and specifying the payment details.
The petitioner therefore sought an opportunity for the statutory authorities to consider those certificates. Reliance was placed on Ext.P12 and on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.45135/2025, where, according to the petitioner, this Court had permitted an additional opportunity by taking note of the observations in M Trade Links v. Union of India [2024 KLT OnLine 1624], even though certificates from suppliers had been obtained belatedly.
The Government Pleader opposed the petition, emphasizing the petitioner’s failure to pursue the remedies available. It was pointed out that the first notice had been issued as early as 26.06.2020, but the petitioner merely sought one month’s time and took no further steps. No reply was submitted. Even after the show cause notice dated 17.09.2021, no proper reply was furnished and the invoice details were not produced.
The respondents further pointed out that the certificates relied upon by the petitioner were issued in August 2023, whereas the writ petition was filed only on 10.03.2026, more than two and a half years after the certificates were obtained. The Government Pleader also relied on the Division Bench decision in Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.1853/2023, referring to the statutory stipulations in Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules and the obligation of the taxpayer to furnish the relevant details within the stipulated period.
The High Court, after considering the records and rival contentions, found no merit in the petitioner’s case. The Court emphasized that none of the notices issued to the petitioner had been properly replied to and that the details of the invoices underlying the transactions had not been furnished.
The Court also attached significance to the fact that Exts.P5 to P11 certificates had been received as early as August 2023, but the petitioner did not take action seeking the relief now claimed immediately thereafter. The writ petition was filed only on 10.03.2026, almost two and a half years after receipt of the certificates. The assessment itself related to the year 2017-2018.
The Court held that the decision relied upon by the petitioner could not be applied to the present facts and circumstances because of the gross delay and lapses in pursuing the available remedies. The Court further observed that the order dated 16.11.2022 had otherwise attained finality and that the petitioner had kept the certificates with himself without invoking the available remedies.
Consequently, the Court held that there was no justifiable reason to invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cases Discussed
- M Trade Links v. Union of India, 2024 KLT OnLine 1624 — referred to in support of the petitioner’s contention that a further opportunity could be granted where supplier certificates concerning payment of tax were obtained belatedly.
- Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.1853/2023 — relied upon by the respondents in relation to the statutory stipulations under Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules and the obligation of the taxpayer to furnish relevant details within the stipulated period.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is an assessee under the CGST/SGST Act. The reliefs sought by the petitioner are as follows:
“(i) To quash Ext. P4 order issued by the 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.
(ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”
2. The facts that led to filing of this writ petition are as follows: In respect of the assessment year 2017-2018, a notice in FORM GST ASMT-10 was issued to the petitioner on 26.06.2020, pointing out certain discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner. One of the main discrepancies highlighted in Ext.P1 was the difference between the figures in FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-2A and thus it was alleged that the petitioner had availed excess Input Tax Credit. The petitioner sought one month’s time to file a reply to the same as per Ext.P2. Later, Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 17.09.2021 was issued to the petitioner in this regard, and thereafter, Ext.P4 order was passed under Section 73 (9) of the CGST Act, demanding an amount of Rs.2,89,932/-towards the excess Input Tax Credit claimed.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had paid the tax in respect of all the said transactions, but since the supplier who had collected the tax from the petitioner along with the value of the supply, failed to upload the necessary details regarding the payment with the statutory authorities, the discrepancies highlighted in the order issued against the petitioner have occurred. It is also the case of the petitioner that, subsequently, the petitioner managed to obtain Exts.P5 to P11 certificates from the suppliers, where, it is certified by the respective suppliers that, they have paid the tax in respect of the transactions and the details of payments are also specified in the said certificates. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking an opportunity to get the aforesaid certificate considered, and to enable the statutory authorities to do so, Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent is challenged. The petitioner is placing reliance upon Ext.P12 and the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.45135/2025 where, this Court, taking note of the observations made in M/s. M Trade Links v. Union of India [2024 KLT OnLine 1624], permitted the petitioners therein, to have a further opportunity, even though the certificates were obtained from the suppliers belatedly.
4. I have heard, Smt. Krishna K, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Reshmitha R Chandran, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. When the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the above contentions, the learned Government Pleader seriously opposes the same, by pointing out the serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the remedies available to the petitioner. It is pointed out that, even though a notice in FORM GST ASMT-10 was issued as early as on 26.06.2020, apart from seeking one month’s time to furnish a reply to the same, no other steps have been taken. No reply was also submitted. Thereafter, the show cause notice as evidenced by Ext.P3 was issued after one year thereof, that was on 17.09.2021 and to that show cause notice also, no proper reply was given and the details of the invoices were not furnished.
5. It was further pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that, even the certificates relied on by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6 to P11 were issued during the month of August 2023, but the petitioner has approached this Court only now, i.e., after more than 2 ½ years. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1853/2023 (Nahas Shukoor v. Assistant Commissioner & Others), where this Court,
by referring to the statutory stipulations contained in Sub Rule (4) Rule 36 of CGST Rules, observed that, it is the obligation of the taxpayer to furnish the details within the period stipulated therein which is 90 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision in Nahas Shukoor’s case cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. After carefully going through the records and considering the contentions raised by both sides, I find no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner. This is particularly because, there are serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the matter. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, none of the notices issued to the petitioner were properly replied and the details of the invoices based on which these transactions were made were also not furnished. Besides, Ext.P5 to P11 certificates were evidently received by the petitioner as early as in the month of August 2023, but no action was taken in respect of the same, by seeking the relief sought in this writ petition immediately after receipt of the same. This writ petition is submitted on 10.03.2026 which is almost after 2 ½ years of receipt of Ext.P5 to P11 notices. Moreover, the assessment pertains to the year 2017-2018. As far as the decision relied on by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, on account of the gross delay and lapses on the part of the petitioner, in pursuing the remedies which are already highlighted above.
7. Thus, when all these aspects are taken into account, I do not find any justifiable reason, to invoke the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on account of the delay and lapses on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the remedies. The fact that the petitioner kept Ext.P5 to P11 documents with himself, without invoking the remedies available to the petitioner, is one of the crucial aspects that prompts this Court to arrive at the conclusion not to interfere in the proceedings, which, otherwise have attained a finality, being an order passed on 16.11.2022. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
