Assessee is not entitled to avail the remedy under writ petition when detailed order is passed by the Revenue Department

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Peter Tyres v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Excise [Writ Petition No. 73 of 2024 dated January 5, 2024]dismissed the writ petition as the Hon'ble High Cout is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain the writ petition as due to availability of statutory remedy with the Petitioner.

Facts

Peter Tyres("the Petitioner") has filed writ petition against the Order-in-Original dated November 29, 2023 ("the Impugned Order"), passed by the Revenue Department ("the Respondent") wherein the Petitioner claim for Input Tax Credit ("ITC") was rejected. The Petitioner further stated that, he was unable to claim ITC due to defects in the form of return provided under the statute. 

Issue

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of writ petition when detailed order is passed by the Revenue Department?

Held

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Writ Petition No. 73 of 2024 held as under:

• Opined that, the Impugned Order contains a detailed narration of facts and legal provisions pertaining to ITC have been reproduced therein. 
• Further Opined that, as per the Impugned Order, ITC was refused because the Petitioner failed to file the return within the period prescribed under the statute. Also, the Impugned Order takes into consideration the Petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice, and the Impugned Order was passed after granting the opportunity of a personal hearing to the Petitioner. 
• Held that, the Hon'ble High Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain the writ petition as due to availability of statutory remedy with the Petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.