Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Officer's ITC Finding Made Within Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”

In this case, on the basis of audit observation under Section 65 of CGST Act, proceedings under Section 74 were initiated against the assessee.

The assessee/petitioner is primarily aggrieved with the failure on the part of the department including the proper officer to consider the claim made by the assessee that all payments to the sundry creditors were made within the statutory period of 180 days which entitles the assessee to avail input tax credit.

The assessee submitted that the department had in the most irregular manner purported to treat the outstandings shown against sundry creditors in the balance-sheet/profit and loss account of the assessee as amounts which have remained outstanding for more than 180 days, in order to attract the second proviso of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, though there being no basis for the same.

The department submitted that admittedly, in this case the assessee did not disclose materials in the form of bank statements to demonstrate that the payments made to the sundry creditors were within the prescribed period of 180 days for the assessee to avail the credit.

On the issue of irregular availment of input tax credit the bench observed that such issue has also been considered and the proper officer has returned a finding that in the absence of appropriate supporting documents no relief could be afforded.

The bench observed that “admittedly, according to the assessee the order has been partly complied with. What the assessee seeks to challenge is an error committed by the proper officer while considering the materials on record. This Court cannot enter into such disputed questions in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

No further statutory challenge thereto, is maintainable as the assessee cannot be permitted to have a second round before the appellate authority, so as to reopen the issues raised herein once again, added the bench.

In view of the above, the bench disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.

Case Number: WPA 9655 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner/Assessee: Vinay Kr. Shraff, Priya Sarah Paul, Dev Kr, Agarwal, S. Poddar and Ankita Biswas

Counsel for Respondent/Department: Vipul Kundalia, K.K. Maiti and D. Chowdhuri

Click Here To Read/Download The Order