Mahindra And Mahindra Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur – 8. This order directed the petitioner to pay or reverse the alleged Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without providing a due opportunity of hearing. The respondents argued that the order was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was available. The impugned order was passed after scrutiny of returns under Section 61 and under Section 73 of the Act.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed after scrutiny of returns under Section 61 and under Section 73 of the Act, 2017. The Court noted that the Act provides a specific mechanism for filing an appeal before the appellate authority if an assessee is aggrieved by an order. Since an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, was available to the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The issue of whether the order was passed without a due opportunity of hearing was not decided on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur – 8, is bad and unsustainable in law for being passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as argued by the respondents? Petitioner's contention: The impugned order is liable to be dismissed as it was passed without providing a due opportunity of hearing. Respondents' contention: The impugned order was passed after affording due opportunity of hearing. Even if the petitioner is aggrieved, they should challenge the order by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. Respondent No. 3 supported this submission.