R K Transport PVT LTD Through Its Director Vivek Pandey vs. The Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Through Its Director General

Facts

The petitioner, R.K. Transport Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking a direction against the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence and the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax to initiate proceedings against respondent no. 4, Shree Balaji Transport & Roadways Private Limited. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 4 had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the Financial Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, despite not having paid the supplier, which is the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that their representations to the authorities had not resulted in any action. Respondent no. 1 stated that the petitioner's representation would be considered in accordance with law, but refrained from commenting on the allegations as it required inquiry and verification.

Held

The Court held that the nature of the relief prayed for and the allegations made were matters that the respondent authorities were competent to examine. Therefore, the Court was not required to make any comments on the merits of the case or issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for. The Court noted that respondent no. 4 was not before the Court. It was open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority with their representation, which would be considered in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with the operative direction being that the petitioner could approach the competent authority for consideration of their representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to initiate proceedings against respondent no. 4 for alleged violation of Section 16(2)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without making payment to the supplier, and whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing such action? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that respondent no. 4 had violated Section 16(2)(d) of the CGST Act by availing ITC for tax invoices where payment had not been made to the petitioner, the supplier. They contended that despite making representations to the respondent authorities, no action had been taken, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue's Contentions: The counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that the representation of the petitioner before the competent authority would be considered in accordance with law. However, they stated that no comments could be made at that stage regarding the allegations as it was a matter requiring inquiry and verification.