Sp Safe Control Systems PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Held

The Court noted that the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated 27.02.2025 was not disputed. The Petitioner had challenged the order primarily on the extent of the penalty imposed and the recovery of wrongly availed ITC. The Court, considering the availability of the appellate remedy, directed the Petitioner that if they were so advised, they could avail the remedy of appeal. The Court further stated that if the Petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for excluding the period during which the Writ Petition remained pending, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty or the ITC claim.

Facts

The Petitioner, SP Safe Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 27.02.2025, specifically the imposition of a penalty of INR 25,79,153/- under Section 122(2)(a) read with Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner also sought directions to allow them to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) for a period during which their GST registration was erroneously cancelled. The impugned order dated 27.02.2025 not only imposed the penalty but also ordered the recovery of wrongly availed IGST, CGST, and SGST. The availability of a statutory remedy of appeal against the order was not disputed by the Petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 to the extent it imposes a penalty of INR 25,79,153/- under Section 122(2)(a) read with Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to avail the Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period during which its GST registration remained erroneously cancelled. Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner sought to challenge the penalty imposed and sought directions for the restoration of ITC during the period of erroneous cancellation of registration. The Petitioner did not explicitly argue on the merits of the penalty or ITC claim but rather sought relief through a writ petition. Respondents' Contentions: The Respondents did not dispute the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. They implicitly relied on the existence of this alternative remedy.