Peter Tyres Vs Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax
Date: January 4, 2024
Subject Matter
Writ petition not admissible when a detailed order considering the petitioner’s reply along with PH is passed by the Revenue Department
Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Peter Tyres against the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Excise, where the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) was rejected due to the failure to file the return within the period prescribed under the statute. The Hon’ble Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the detailed order passed by the Revenue Department, which considered the petitioner’s reply and provided a personal hearing, indicated the availability of a statutory remedy for the petitioner. Therefore, the court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertained the writ petition.
The petitioner assails an order-in-original No.22/2023-GST-AC-CUD dated 29.11.2023 by which the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit was rejected. The petitioner asserts that he is a registered person under the GST regime. He submits that he is entitled to input tax credit for the period running from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2022. He further submits that he was unable to claim input tax credit in view of defects in the form of return provided under the statute. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.
2. Mr. Ramesh Kutty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He submits that a statutory remedy is provided in respect of the impugned order. He also points out that the impugned order was pronounced after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and that the same is reflected in the order.
3. The impugned order contains a detailed narration of the facts. The legal provisions relating to input tax credit are also reproduced therein. Thereafter, the respondent has set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that input tax credit was refused because of the failure of the petitioner to file the return within the period prescribed by statute. Significantly, the impugned order takes into account the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice and it is evident that said order was issued after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.
4. In the facts and circumstances outlined above, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain this writ petition in light of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner.
5. Therefore, W.P.No.73 of 2024 is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.