Nikitha Traders Vs Superintendent of CGST and Centra Excise (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that writ against order confirming demand towards difference between Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in GSTR -3B and ITC available as per GSTR – 2A dismissed due to availability of efficacious remedy.
Facts- M/s Nikitha Traders, a proprietary concern is the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondent herein, the writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari and the same got dismissed. Hence, the intra court appeal.
Notably, vide the assessment order, demand of Rs.13,24,403/- being the difference between Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in GSTR -3B and ITC available as per GSTR – 2A and appropriated a sum of Rs.17,382/- was confirmed.
Conclusion- While so, when alternate efficacious remedy provided under the statute, the appellant, without availing the remedy under the statute by filing the appeal after deposit of 10% of the duty and penalty demanded, to circumvent the condition, had approached the High Court invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Held that, the statute provides for rectifying the defective or erroneous filing of return under wrong provision/ Form. The appellant had not come forward either prior to the show cause notice or after it or during the detailed scrutiny of his account to rectify the account. Only after the issuance of Show Cause Notice, taking cue from the judgment of the High Court and the circulars issued regarding limitation for rectification, a defiance of wrong payment and withdrawal is put forth. Even now, the appellant is not left without remedy. The Learned Single Judge has preserved his right of appeal and the grounds of appeal to be tested before the Appellate Authority.
