P.R. Rolling Mills Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a statute creates a right and prescribes a specific remedy or procedure for enforcing that right or liability, that statutory remedy must be exhausted before invoking the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed the writ petition directly challenging the Assessing Officer's order dated January 25, 2021, against which a statutory appeal is provided. Since an alternate and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-maintainability. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ITC claim or the arguments raised by either party regarding the provisions of the RVAT Act, 2003, or the genuineness of the transactions.

Facts

The petitioner, P.R. Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 25, 2021, passed by the Assessing Officer. This order denied the petitioner Input Tax Credit (ITC) and sought to recover Rs. 1,16,82,229/-. The dispute arose from transactions with respondent no. 2, M/s Tantia Enterprises, where the petitioner claimed ITC on purchases. The Assessing Officer disallowed the ITC, leading to recovery demands. The matter was remanded twice by the Appellate Authority to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer's subsequent orders, dated June 13, 2018, and January 25, 2021, again denied ITC, with the latter demanding Rs. 1,16,82,229/-. The petitioner argued that payments and GST were made to respondent no. 2, but it failed to deposit the tax. The petitioner relied on Section 18(1) of the RVAT Act, 2003, for ITC entitlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory appeal remedy is available against the Assessing Officer's order dated January 25, 2021, under the relevant statute. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that despite the availability of an alternate remedy, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction, especially when a statutory right is involved and no tax can be recovered without authority of law. They cited precedents where SLPs against similar High Court judgments were not stayed by the Apex Court. They also argued that the benefit of ITC should be granted upon production of tax invoices as per the scheme of the Act of 2003, and that the purchase amount was transferred, goods were booked, and gate passes were issued, which were not considered by the Assessing Officer. Revenue's arguments: The respondent Department argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the assessment order was passed under the RVAT Act, and a statutory appeal is the prescribed remedy. They asserted that the petitioner failed to produce transportation bilties and that the transaction appeared to be a paper transaction without physical movement of goods. The Department further argued that the petitioner's reliance on Section 18(2) of the Act of 2003 was misplaced, as the case falls under Section 18(3)(v), which disallows ITC if the purchasing dealer fails to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction. They also noted the matter was sub-judice before the Apex Court.