Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Kuriakose Parappottu Binu Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C) No. 10287 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/03/2024
Related Assessment Year :

Kuriakose Parappottu Binu Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)

In the case of Kuriakose Parappottu Binu vs. State Tax Officer, the Kerala High Court addressed the wrongful denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the CGST Act. The petitioner contested Ext.P2 order issued by the State Tax Officer, seeking relief from the liability of CGST/SGST for the assessment year 2018-19.

The crux of the matter lies in the petitioner’s claim that Input Tax Credit was wrongly denied. However, the court observed that the petitioner failed to appear before the officer or file a reply to the show cause notice, as evidenced in Ext.P2 order. Despite the petitioner’s contention, the court affirmed that statutory remedies against Ext.P2 order should be pursued.

The learned Government Pleader asserted that the petitioner must avail statutory remedies, indicating the petitioner’s obligation to file an appeal against Ext.P2 order within the stipulated time. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner.

The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in matters concerning taxation disputes. While the petitioner claimed wrongful denial of ITC, the court’s decision underscores the significance of availing statutory remedies in such cases. This ruling serves as a precedent for taxpayers to follow appropriate legal channels to address grievances under the CGST Act.


The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the State Tax Officer, Tax Payer Services Circle, Kottayam town determining the liability of the petitioner to CGST/ SGST for the assessment year 2018-19.

2. The learned Government Pleader points out that a reading of Ext.P2 order will show that the petitioner has not appeared before the officer despite receipt of notice and had not even filed a reply to the show cause notice. It is submitted that in such circumstances notwithstanding the claim of the petitioner that Input Tax Credit has been wrongly denied, it is for the petitioner to avail a statutory remedies against Ext.P2 order.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to Ext.P2 order, I am of the view that learned Government Pleader is right in contending that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is for the petitioner to avail statutory remedies against Ext.P2 order. Since the petitioner is within time to file an appeal against Ext.P2 order, no further reliefs are required to be extended to the petitioner.

Writ petition will stand dismissed.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
April 2024