M/S Taran Angad Traders PVT. LTD. Address Ground Floor O1 Inder Bhawan Mlb Road Lashkar Gwalior Thro vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it would not be proper to address the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction and merits of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had already submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the authority by filing a reply. The Court directed the petitioner, if advised, to file an additional reply incorporating the submissions made before the High Court. The Court expressed its trust that the concerned authority would consider the issues raised in the reply or additional reply and pass an order with due regard to the record and the provisions of the GST Act, maintaining judicial discipline. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Taran Angad Traders Pvt. Ltd., an assessee under the GST Act, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated September 26, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST Division I, Gwalior. The notice was issued for the period 2017-18. The petitioner had filed its GSTR-9 return on February 22, 2020, declaring an Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal of Rs. 1,49,90,443/-. However, the revenue observed that this reversal was not reflected in the petitioner's monthly GSTR-3B returns for the subsequent financial year until March 2019. Furthermore, the revenue noted that the petitioner had taken excess ITC of Rs. 1,48,32,806/- (CGST Rs. 1,88,351.92, SGST Rs. 1,88,351.92, IGST Rs. 1,44,56,102.01) as per Table 8 of GSTR-9 for 2017-18, with no corresponding reversal or interest payment shown in the monthly GSTR-3B returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice when the petitioner has already filed a reply to the said notice? (Question of law and procedure). The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was flawed both in terms of the assessing officer's jurisdiction and on merits concerning the justification of the demand. The petitioner sought to challenge these aspects before the High Court. The respondent revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had already submitted a reply to the show cause notice, thereby subjecting itself to the jurisdiction of the concerned authority. The revenue argued that the High Court should not interfere at this stage and that the petitioner should pursue the matter before the adjudicating authority.