Manpar Icon Technologies Vs Assistant Commissioner CGST Division & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order dismissing the writ petition filed by Manpar Icon Technologies on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. However, the Supreme Court extended the period of limitation up to 16 October 2026 to enable the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. The underlying dispute concerned a show cause notice dated 28 June 2025 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 alleging wrongful utilisation of ITC of ₹42,66,108 from M/s Advanta Sales for FY 2018-19. After the petitioner contended that transactions with the supplier related to FY 2019-20 and not FY 2018-19, a corrigendum dated 22 December 2025 included both financial years. The petitioner challenged the corrigendum as an impermissible enlargement of the show cause notice, beyond the limited rectification power under Section 161, and as being barred by limitation. The High Court held that examining the nature and validity of the correction would require appreciation of facts and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction because an efficacious appeal was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with Rule 109A of the CGST Rules. It expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court similarly did not adjudicate the validity of the corrigendum, limitation issue or disputed ITC and confined its order to declining interference while protecting the petitioner’s opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Cases Discussed
- Infeon Technologies AG v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr., WP(C) No. 49458/2018 (Karnataka High Court) — relied upon by the petitioner to contend that a corrigendum could not be used to enlarge proceedings beyond the legally permissible scope of rectification.
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., 2007 (213) E.L.T. 487 (SC) — relied upon by the petitioner while stressing the foundational importance of a valid show cause notice.
- Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 447 (Supreme Court) — relied upon by the Revenue and considered by the High Court regarding the recognised exceptions permitting exercise of writ jurisdiction despite availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Supreme Court) — considered by the High Court on the recognised exceptions to the rule that writ jurisdiction ordinarily should not be exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 (Supreme Court) — considered on the circumstances in which writ jurisdiction may nevertheless be exercised despite availability of an alternative remedy.
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors., 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 (Supreme Court) — considered regarding the supervisory and limited nature of certiorari jurisdiction and the restriction against reappreciation of facts.
Read High Court Judgment in this case: Manpar Icon Technologies Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, we deem it appropriate to extend the period of limitation upto 16th October, 2026 for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
