27 Jun 2022 9:30 AM GMT
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition is not maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy was available to the taxpayer. The single bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that there are a few exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Firstly, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question....
The Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition is not maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy was available to the taxpayer.
The single bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that there are a few exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Firstly, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question. Secondly, in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Thirdly, authorities have resorted to invoking the provisions that were repealed. Fourthly, when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice,
The petitioner has challenged the assessment orders in the writ petitions. There is a difference in the ITC claimed by the petitioner in its GSTR-2B and the information captured in the GSTR-2A as compared to the GSTR-1 of the supplier for the respective assessment years. The demand has been worked out as Rs. 8,21,123 and Rs. 3,53,519 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively.
The petitioner contended that credit obtained under the provisions of GST on the basis of invoices issued by the supplier cannot be denied because ITC was obtained on the basis of invoices on which tax was charged by the supplier to the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted that the mistake committed by the supplier in not properly uploading the information in their GSTR-1 would not come in the legitimate way of availing the input tax credit to the petitioner. The department has been adopting a discriminatory policy between domestic and integrated supply of goods and services and the orders are liable to be quashed.
The department submitted that the demand has been confirmed based on a proper show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge to the Assessment Orders in writ petitions is devoid of merit.
The department contended that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST and SGST Act. Therefore, the petitioner should work out the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner.
The court dismissed the writ petition. However, the court gave liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty days.
Case Title: M/s.Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST)
Case No: W.P.Nos.17109 & 17111 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.18134 & 18137 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Counsel For Petitioner: J.Arasi Ponmalar
Counsel For Respondent: Additional Government Pleader Richardson Wilson
Click Here To Read/Download Order