2025 (7) TMI 388 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - ineligible ITC availed and utilised - various documents produced by the petitioner were not considered by the proper officer - violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the impugned order it is noticed that the proper officer had granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the authorised representative was even heard. In the impugned order the authority has considered and discussed the contentions of the petitioner. It is specifically observed that the petitioner had admitted that there was wrong availment of ITC for the period April 2020 to December 2020 and even availed ITC instead of claiming credit in the electronic credit ledger but it was all reversed in the month of January 2021. It has been observed in the impugned order that evidence for the receipt of goods or services and corresponding payment made for the amount towards the value of supply along with the tax payable were not available. Merely because the petitioner alleges that some of the documents produced has not been considered extensively the same is not a reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction especially when petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. This writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies in accordance with law.

Summary

The Kerala High Court, through Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed the writ petition challenging the order under section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, which imposed Rs. 3,28,92,582/- for ineligible ITC availed during 2020-21, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner contended violation of natural justice, alleging non-consideration of documents (Annexures A-D) by the proper officer. The Court noted that the petitioner was granted a hearing, and the order reflected consideration of contentions, including the admission of wrongful ITC availment reversed subsequently. The authority found lack of evidence for receipt of goods/services and corresponding tax payment. Although the petitioner argued erroneous factual findings regarding supplier's tax return in Form GSTR 3-B, the Court held such findings are not amenable to interference under Article 226, as they require detailed document appreciation. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction, stating: "Mere non-consideration of some documents is not a reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction." The petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue statutory appeals.