The Madras High Court held that the writ petition in High Court is not maintainable if Statutory Alternative Remedy is available under CGST Act.
Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, counsel for writ petitioner, M/s. Costal Plastochem Pvt Ltd. submitted that the impugned order pertains to reversal of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 19(4) of TNVAT Act.
The State counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, on instructions, submits that reversal of ITC no doubt is under Section 19(4) of TNVAT Act but the impugned order has been made under Section 27 of TNVAT Act.
The counsel for writ petitioner points out that there is no mention about Section 27 of TNVAT Act in the impugned order. This is the reason why the opening remark was made saying this is yet another case where the provision of law has not been mentioned in the impugned order and that by itself has led to a sea of confusion in the case on hand.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Sundar held that the argument that Section 19(4) reversal of ITC can be only for 5% and above of tax will not qualify as excess of jurisdiction and it would at the highest qualify only as an error. To be noted, this Court is not expressing any view as it is relegating writ petitioner to alternate remedy of revision/appeal. Even if this argument is to be accepted, it would only qualify as an error and it may not qualify as excess of jurisdiction.
“If the writ petitioner chooses to file an appeal under Section 51 or revision under Section 54 as the case may be (subject to limitation) the same can be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law by the appellate authority or revisional authority as the case may be. If the appellate authority or the revisional authority as the case may be entertains the appeal or revision (subject of course to limitation), the observation made in this order will neither be an impediment nor serve as an impetus qua appeal or revision, in other words, the appellate authority or revisional authority shall deal with it on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by any observation made in this order,” the court said.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment