Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 825 - HC - GSTMismatch in Input Tax Credit - Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner company as per their returns, is not matching with the eligible Input Tax Credit as reflected in GSTR-2A statements and is in excess in respect of CGST, IGST as well as SGST Credits - HELD THAT - There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that it is trite law that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be exercised in a routine fashion at the stage of show cause notice. Though it is submitted that the issues raised are governed by orders of this Court, however, it would require investigation of facts an exercise which is alien to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Courts have frowned on Writ Petition filed against show cause notices. The liability to pay taxes requires determination of disputed questions of fact and should be agitated before Department authorities. This Writ Petition against the show cause notice not entertained - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to show cause notice dated 01.04.2021 regarding Input Tax Credit availed under various tax Acts. Premature filing of writ petition against show cause notice. Issue 1: Input Tax Credit Discrepancy The petitioner, engaged in importing and trading of kitchen and household articles, faced allegations of mismatch in Input Tax Credit availed and eligible credit reflected in GSTR-2A statements for CGST, IGST, and SGST Credits. The audit conducted by the 1st respondent for the period July 2017 to March 2019 revealed that excess credit was taken by the petitioner without reversing it, despite a mismatch in the details of outward supplies furnished by the suppliers. Issue 2: Show Cause Notice Challenge The impugned Show Cause Notice No. 78/2021 dated 01.04.2021 proposed to recover ineligible credit under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act along with interest. The petitioner contended that they rightfully took Input Tax Credit based on payments made to suppliers, even if the suppliers' returns did not accurately reflect these payments. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioner argued that recipients have the right to take credit when payments, including taxes, have been made to suppliers. The Court acknowledged the respondent's objection that the writ petition was premature, emphasizing that the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked routinely at the show cause notice stage. It was noted that tax liabilities involve disputed factual questions best addressed before department authorities, as highlighted in the case of Union of India v Bajaj Tempo Ltd (1998) 2 SCC 281. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the show cause notice, advising the petitioner to submit objections within four weeks. The petitioner was encouraged to rely on relevant provisions or judgments, with assurance that objections would be duly considered, and orders passed after affording the petitioner a legal opportunity. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|