M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, Cuttack

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Amarjothi Granites (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31st March, 2026, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Ganjam-II, Berhampur. This order rejected the petitioner's refund application for accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the tax period 2024-25. The petitioner, engaged in mining and sale of granite blocks, claimed an inverted duty structure led to the accumulation of ITC. The petitioner paid GST on royalty under RCM and attracted GST on outward supplies at a lower rate. The Revenue contended that the GST Act is a self-contained code and the petitioner has an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should not be entertained. It found force in the Revenue's submission that Section 107 of the GST Act provides a mechanism to question the veracity and validity of the rejection order. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The Court also noted that the writ petition was filed within the stipulated period for appeal under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the GST Act. It directed the appellate authority to consider the period during which the writ petition was pursued before this Court for the computation of limitation, subject to the fulfillment of other statutory requirements. The Court explicitly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter or the point of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, when an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the rejection order and direct the grant of refund, implying the writ petition was the appropriate recourse. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the GST Act is a self-contained code, and the petitioner is not remediless, thus suggesting the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy under the Act and not approach the High Court via a writ petition.