Assessee not entitled to avail remedy under writ petition when detailed order is passed by Revenue Department

Assessee not entitled to avail remedy under writ petition when detailed order is passed by Revenue Department

Peter Tyres Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Excise (Madras High Court)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Peter Tyres v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Excise [Writ Petition No. 73 of 2024 dated January 5, 2024] dismissed the writ petition as the Hon’ble High Cout is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain the writ petition as due to availability of statutory remedy with the Petitioner.

Facts:

Peter Tyres (“the Petitioner”) has filed writ petition against the Order-in-Original dated November 29, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”), passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) wherein the Petitioner claim for Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) was rejected. The Petitioner further stated that, he was unable to claim ITC due to defects in the form of return provided under the statute.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of writ petition when detailed order is passed by the Revenue Department?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Writ Petition No. 73 of 2024 held as under:

• Opined that, the Impugned Order contains a detailed narration of facts and legal provisions pertaining to ITC have been reproduced therein.
• Further Opined that, as per the Impugned Order, ITC was refused because the Petitioner failed to file the return within the period prescribed under the statute. Also, the Impugned Order takes into consideration the Petitioner’s reply to the Show Cause Notice, and the Impugned Order was passed after granting the opportunity of a personal hearing to the Petitioner.
• Held that, the Hon’ble High Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain the writ petition as due to availability of statutory remedy with the Petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

The petitioner assails an order-in-original No.22/2023-GST-AC-CUD dated 29.11.2023 by which the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit was rejected. The petitioner asserts that he is a registered person under the GST regime. He submits that he is entitled to input tax credit for the period running from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2022. He further submits that he was unable to claim input tax credit in view of defects in the form of return provided under the statute. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.

2. Mr. Ramesh Kutty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He submits that a statutory remedy is provided in respect of the impugned order. He also points out that the impugned order was pronounced after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and that the same is reflected in the order.

3. The impugned order contains a detailed narration of the facts. The legal provisions relating to input tax credit are also reproduced therein. Thereafter, the respondent has set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that input tax credit was refused because of the failure of the petitioner to file the return within the period prescribed by statute. Significantly, the impugned order takes into account the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice and it is evident that said order was issued after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.

4. In the facts and circumstances outlined above, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain this writ petition in light of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

5. Therefore, W.P.No.73 of 2024 is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

 *****

(Author can be reached at [email protected])