2025 (5) TMI 2065 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - Wrong availment of input tax credit - HELD THAT - Petitioner has already challenged the order of assessment before the Appellate Authority and the same is pending from 07.11.2024. In Exhibit-P4 judgment this Court set aside the assessment order despite the pendency of the appeal in view of the exceptional circumstances in that case as the appeal had been pending consideration for more than eight months. In the instant case petitioner s appeal was filed only on 07.11.2024 and therefore that can be attributed to the Appellate Authority. The contention now taken before this Court can certainly be considered by the Appellate Authority and the petitioner would not be put to any prejudice. Invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this juncture is not warranted. However since petitioner apprehends that the appeal will not be disposed of immediately and the Appellate Authority may take its own sweet time to dispose of the matter it is deemed appropriate to direct the appeal to be considered and disposed of in a time bound manner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Kerala High Court, through Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, addressed a challenge to the assessment order (Exhibit-P1) dated 09.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020, wherein the petitioner was found to have utilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) in excess, attracting liability under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Exhibit-P2) on 07.11.2024, pending before the Appellate Authority.The Court referenced its prior decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India [2024 KHC Online 7215], which held that the electronic credit ledger functions as a "wallet with different compartments" (IGST, CGST, SGST) and that "there cannot be any wrong availment of input tax credit merely because a taxpayer had availed the benefit of credit of input tax available in IGST under the heads CGST and SGST." The petitioner argued that this principle warranted setting aside the impugned order, relying on a recent judgment (Exhibit-P4) where a similar assessment order was quashed.The Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that unlike Exhibit-P4 where the appeal had been pending for over eight months, the petitioner's appeal was recently filed and could be adequately considered by the Appellate Authority without prejudice to the petitioner. However, acknowledging the petitioner's apprehension about delay, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within four weeks from receipt of the judgment, explicitly instructing it to consider the impact of the Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex judgment.In sum, the writ petition was dismissed without interfering with the assessment order, but with a mandate for expeditious appellate disposal considering relevant precedents.