GST ITC Mismatch: Court Dismisses Writ, Directs Taxpayer to Appeal Authority

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

M/s. Progressive Stone Works, Represented by its Proprietrix Aurosathyakala vs. The Joint Commissioner (ST) & Others

Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Case No.: W.P. Nos.17109 & 17111 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 18134 & 18137 of 2021

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan

Date of Judgment: 16.06.2022

Key Takeaways

Here are the most important points from this case:

1. ITC Mismatch is a Real Problem: The mismatch between GSTR-3B (claimed by recipient) and GSTR-2A (auto-populated from supplier’s GSTR-1) is a genuine and recurring issue under GST law.

2. Supplier’s Fault Doesn’t Automatically Protect the Buyer: If a supplier fails to correctly upload details in GSTR-1, the recipient’s ITC claim can be questioned — and the ITC may need to be reversed if the supplier doesn’t correct the data.

3. Circulars on Exports Don’t Apply to Domestic ITC Claims: The CBIC circulars cited by the petitioner were primarily in the context of export refunds and were held to be not directly applicable to domestic ITC availing situations.

4. Alternative Remedy Must Be Exhausted First: The High Court reinforced the principle that writ petitions under Article 226 are not the first port of call when a statutory appellate remedy exists.

5. GST Law is a Complete Code: The Court emphasized that the GST enactments and rules are comprehensive and self-contained, with built-in mechanisms to handle mismatches.

6. CBIC Circulars Are Not Binding on Courts: Relying on the Supreme Court’s position, the High Court noted that CBIC circulars are not binding on courts.

Issue

Can a GST-registered taxpayer (recipient) claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on invoices and GSTR-3B filings, even when the supplier has not correctly uploaded the corresponding details in GSTR-1, resulting in a mismatch with GSTR-2A?

And the secondary procedural question:

Can the taxpayer directly challenge the assessment orders through a writ petition before the High Court, bypassing the statutory appellate remedy?

Facts

• Who is the Petitioner? M/s. Progressive Stone Works is a proprietorship firm run by Ms. Aurosathyakala, located in Irumbai Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. They operate under the Thindivanam Circle for GST purposes.

• What’s the Business? As the name suggests, it’s a stone works business — likely involved in granite/stone processing or trading.

• What Happened? For the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the firm claimed ITC in its GSTR-3B returns. However, when the tax authorities compared this with the GSTR-2A (which is auto-populated based on what the firm’s suppliers uploaded in their GSTR-1), there was a mismatch — meaning the suppliers hadn’t properly uploaded all invoice details.

• The Demand: Based on this mismatch, the tax authorities (specifically the 3rd Respondent — State Tax Officer, Thindivanam) passed assessment orders demanding:
• ₹8,21,123/- for AY 2017-18
• ₹3,53,519/- for AY 2018-19
• Total: ₹11,74,642/-

• The Challenge: The firm filed two Writ Petitions (W.P. Nos. 17109 & 17111 of 2021) before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash these assessment orders.

• The Case Reference Number: The assessment orders were in reference number 33BAMPK4409C1Z2/2017-2018, 2018-2019 dated 10.07.2020.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (M/s. Progressive Stone Works)

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. J. Arasi Ponmalar, made several arguments:

1. CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019:

The petitioner relied on this circular, specifically paragraph 2-3, which clarified that GSTR-2A should be used as evidence of the supplier’s accountal of supply. The circular also acknowledged that GSTR-2A may not contain all invoice details if the supplier’s GSTR-1 was delayed or not filed.

2. Press Release dated 18.10.2018:

The petitioner cited paragraph 4 of this press release, which clarified that:

• Filing GSTR-1 by suppliers and viewing it in GSTR-2A is merely a taxpayer facilitation measure
• It does not impact the taxpayer’s ability to avail ITC on a self-assessment basis under Section 16 of the CGST Act
• ITC can be availed even after the September 2018 reconciliation deadline

3. Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 — Para 36:

This circular (specifically para 36) stated that for refund claims, if invoices are not populated in GSTR-2A, self-certified copies can be uploaded. The proper officer cannot insist on original invoices if details are in GSTR-2A.

4. Press Release dated 04.03.2018:

The petitioner relied on clause (iv) of this press release, which stated there shall be no automatic reversal of ITC from the buyer just because the seller hasn’t paid tax. Recovery should first be made from the seller, and reversal from the buyer is only an option in exceptional situations (like missing dealer, closure of business, etc.).

5. Supplier’s Mistake Shouldn’t Penalize the Buyer:

The petitioner argued that the supplier’s failure to properly upload information in GSTR-1 should not deprive the petitioner of its legitimate ITC.

6. Discrimination Between Domestic and Export Supplies:

The petitioner argued that the department was treating domestic and integrated (export) supplies differently — refunds were being given in export cases under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules in similar circumstances, but not in domestic cases. Reference was also made to Rules 58 & 59 of the CGST Rules.

7. TNVAT Precedent:

The petitioner cited the case of JKM Graphics Solutions Pvt., Ltd., vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai, (2017) 99 VST 343 (Mad), where a similar mismatch issue under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 was resolved in favour of the taxpayer.

8. Section 42 Not Implemented:

The petitioner argued that Section 42 of the CGST Act (which deals with matching, reversal and reclaim of ITC) had not been fully implemented, and therefore the impugned orders could not be sustained.

9. Recent Circular:

The petitioner also brought to the Court’s attention a clarification by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide Circular No. 5 of 2021 dated 24.02.2021.

Respondents’ Arguments (Tax Authorities)

The respondents’ counsel, Mr. Richardson Wilson, Additional Government Pleader, argued:

1. Proper Procedure Was Followed:

The demand was confirmed based on a proper show cause notice issued to the petitioner, so the assessment orders were valid.

2. Alternative Remedy Available:

The petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy — a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the CGST and SGST Act. The writ petition should not be entertained when such a remedy exists.

3. ITC Requires Evidence of Tax Payment by Supplier:

Credit availed in GSTR-3B can only be utilized if there is evidence that the supplier has paid tax and filed GSTR-1 returns. Just because the petitioner claimed credit in GSTR-3B doesn’t mean they are entitled to it.

4. GSTR-3B Credit is Provisional:

The credit availed in GSTR-3B is only provisional and is subject to proper reconciliation with GSTR-2A data. If the supplier hasn’t declared the invoices in GSTR-1, the recipient cannot claim ITC on those invoices.

Key Legal Precedents & Provisions

Here are all the legal references cited in this judgment:

Case Laws:

Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC

Supreme Court decision holding that CBIC circulars are not binding on courts. Used to limit the applicability of the circulars cited by the petitioner.

JKM Graphics Solutions Pvt., Ltd., vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai, (2017) 99 VST 343 (Mad)

Madras High Court case under TNVAT Act, 2006, where a similar data mismatch issue was resolved. Cited by the petitioner as a precedent.

Statutory Provisions:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Under which the writ petitions were filed — gives High Courts power to issue writs

Section 16 of the CGST Act

Deals with eligibility and conditions for taking ITC — cited in the press release relied upon by petitioner

Section 38 of the CGST Act

Deals with communication of details of inward supplies

Section 39 of the CGST Act

Deals with furnishing of returns

Section 42 of the CGST Act

Deals with matching, reversal and reclaim of ITC — petitioner argued this was not fully implemented

Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act

Provides for appeal before the Appellate Commissioner — the alternative remedy the Court directed the petitioner to use

Rule 59(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017

Requires suppliers to file monthly GSTR-1 returns

Sub-Rule (4) to Rule 59 of the CGST Rules

Deals with how corrections made by recipient in GSTR-2 are communicated to supplier via GSTR-1A, and how the supplier can accept or reject them

Rule 89 of the CGST Rules

Deals with refund claims — cited in the context of export refunds

Rules 58 & 59 of the CGST Rules

Cited by petitioner regarding parity between domestic and integrated supply treatment

Notification No. 49/2019-CT dated 09.10.2019

Inserted Sub-rule (4) in Rule 36 of CGST Rules — restricting ITC availment

Circulars & Press Releases:

Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 04.09.2018

GSTR-2A as evidence of supplier’s accountal; officer cannot insist on invoices already in GSTR-2A

Press Release dated 18.10.2018

GSTR-1/GSTR-2A is facilitation only; ITC can be availed on self-assessment basis under Section 16

Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 (Para 36)

Self-certified invoice copies to be uploaded for invoices not in GSTR-2A for refund claims

Press Release dated 04.03.2018 (Clause iv)

No automatic reversal of ITC from buyer for seller’s non-payment

Circular No. 5 of 2021 dated 24.02.2021

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarification

Judgment

Who Won?

The Respondents (Tax Authorities) effectively won — the writ petitions were dismissed. However, the Court gave the petitioner a lifeline by allowing them to pursue the statutory appeal route.

The Court’s Reasoning:

Step 1 — GST Law is a Complete Code:

The Court observed that the GST enactments and rules are comprehensive and self-contained, drawing from decades of experience under MODVAT, Cenvat Credit Rules (2001, 2002, 2004), and various VAT enactments. The system is designed to be fool-proof with minimal revenue leakage.

Step 2 — How the System Works:

The Court explained the entire ITC matching mechanism:

• Suppliers file GSTR-1 under Rule 59(1)
• Details auto-populate in recipient’s GSTR-2A
• Recipient compares and files GSTR-2
• Discrepancies are communicated via GSTR-1A to the supplier
• Supplier accepts/rejects via Sub-Rule 4 to Rule 59
• If supplier doesn’t correct, the recipient’s ITC is liable to be reversed

Step 3 — Circulars Not Applicable Here:

The circulars cited by the petitioner were primarily in the context of export refunds, not domestic ITC availing. Moreover, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1, the Court held that CBIC circulars are not binding on courts.

Step 4 — Alternative Remedy Exists:

The Court noted that exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy exist only when:

• The statutory authority hasn’t acted per the enactment
• There’s defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure
• Repealed provisions were invoked
• There’s total violation of principles of natural justice

None of these exceptions applied here. The petitioner had a clear alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act — an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner.

The Order:

• Both writ petitions dismissed
• Petitioner given liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days from receipt of the order copy
• If filed within time, the appeal shall be numbered and taken up for hearing on its turn
• No costs awarded
• Connected miscellaneous petitions closed

FAQs

Q1: What exactly is the ITC mismatch problem in GST?

Great question! When you buy goods/services, you claim ITC in your GSTR-3B. But this credit is only “confirmed” when your supplier uploads the corresponding invoice in their GSTR-1, which then auto-populates in your GSTR-2A. If the supplier doesn’t upload correctly, there’s a mismatch — and the tax department can question your ITC claim.

Q2: Is the buyer always at fault when there’s a mismatch?

Not necessarily. The mismatch could be entirely the supplier’s fault. However, under the GST framework, the Court clarified that if the supplier doesn’t correct the data in GSTR-1, the recipient’s ITC remains at risk and may need to be reversed.

Q3: Can the petitioner still win this case?

Yes! The Court only dismissed the writ petition on procedural grounds (alternative remedy available). The petitioner can still file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act within 30 days and argue the merits there.

Q4: Why didn’t the CBIC circulars help the petitioner?

Two reasons: First, the circulars were primarily about export refunds, not domestic ITC claims. Second, the Supreme Court has held in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1 that CBIC circulars don’t bind courts.

Q5: What is the significance of the “no automatic reversal” press release?

The press release dated 04.03.2018 said ITC shouldn’t be automatically reversed from the buyer just because the seller didn’t pay tax. However, the Court didn’t directly rule on this — it left this argument to be decided by the Appellate Authority.

Q6: What is GSTR-1A and why is it important?

GSTR-1A is the form through which a recipient can communicate corrections to the supplier’s GSTR-1. Under Sub-Rule 4 to Rule 59 of the CGST Rules, the supplier can accept or reject these corrections. If accepted, the GSTR-1 gets amended and the ITC gets confirmed. This is the proper channel to resolve mismatches.

Q7: What happens if the petitioner misses the 30-day deadline to file the appeal?

The Court specifically gave 30 days from receipt of the order copy to file the appeal. If the petitioner misses this window, they may lose the benefit of the Court’s direction and may face procedural hurdles in filing a delayed appeal. It’s crucial to act promptly!

Q8: Does this judgment set a precedent that ITC can always be denied for GSTR-2A mismatches?

Not exactly. The Court didn’t rule on the merits of the ITC claim. It only said the writ petition wasn’t the right forum. The substantive question of whether ITC can be denied for supplier’s GSTR-1 non-filing remains open for the Appellate Authority to decide.

Q9: What was the total amount at stake?

The combined demand was ₹11,74,642/- — comprising ₹8,21,123/- for AY 2017-18 and ₹3,53,519/- for AY 2018-19.

Q10: Is this a common problem for GST taxpayers?

Very much so! The Court itself acknowledged that “most of the difficulties faced in the implementation of GST law are on account of technical glitches as returns and forms are system driven.” This is a widespread issue affecting many businesses across India.

The petitioner has challenged the respective Assessment Orders in

these writ petitions for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

There is difference in the ITC claimed by the petitioner in its GSTR-2B

and the information captured in the GSTR-2A as compared to the GSTR

1 of the supplier for the respective Assessment years. The demand has

been workout as Rs.8,21,123/- and Rs.3,53,519/- for the Assessment Year

2017-18 and Assessment Year 2018-19 respectively.

2. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had

issued a clarification on 04.09.2018 bearing Circular No.125/44/2019-

GST, wherein paragraph No.2.3 clarified as follows:

“ 2.3.In view of the difficulties being faced by the

claimants of refund, it has been decided that the

refund claim shall be accompanied by a print-out

of Form GSTR-2A of the claimant for the relevant

period for which the refund is claimed. The proper

officer shall rely upon Form GSTR-2A as an

evidence of the accountal of the supply by the

corresponding supplier in relation to which the

input tax credit has been availed by the claimant.

It may be noted that there may be situations in

which Form GSTR-2A may not contain the details

of all the invoices relating to the input tax credit

availed, possibly because the supplier's Form

GSTR-1 was delayed or not filed. In such

situations, the proper officer may call for the hard

copies of such invoices if he deems it necessary for

the examination of the claim for refund. It is

emphasized that the proper officer shall not insist

on the submission of an invoice (either original or

duplicate) the details of which are present in Form

GSTR-2A of the relevant period submitted by the

claimant.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the press release of the Government of India dated 18.10.2018. The

relevant portion from the said Circular reads as under:

outward details in Form GSTR-1 by the

corresponding supplier(s) and the facility to view

the same in Form GSTR-2A by the recipient is in

the nature of taxpayer facilitation and does not

impact the ability of the taxpayer to avail ITC on

self-assessment basis in consonance with the

provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The

apprehension that ITC can be availed only on the

basis of reconciliation between Form GSTR-2A and

Form GSTR-3B conducted before the due date for

filing of return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of

September, 2018 is unfounded as the same exercise

can be done thereafter also.''

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

another clarification vide Circular dated 18.11.2019 bearing Circular

No.125/44/2019-GST. A specific reference was made to para 36 which

reads as under:

''36.Applicants of refunds of unutilized ITC

i.e. refunds pertaining to items listed at (a), (c) and

(e) in para 3 above, shall have to upload a copy of

Form GSTR-2A for the relevant period (or any

prior or subsequent period(s) in which the relevant

invoices have been auto-populated) for which the

refund is claimed. The proper officer shall rely

upon FORM GSTR-2A as an evidence of the

accountal of the supply by the corresponding

supplier(s) in relation to which the input tax credit

has been availed by the applicant. Such applicants

shall also upload the details of all the invoices on

the basis of which input tax credit has been availed

during the relevant period for which the refund is

being claimed, in the format enclosed as Annexure

– B along with the application for refund claim.

Such availment of ITC will be subject to restriction

imposed under sub-rule (4) in rule 36 of the CGST

rules inserted vide Notification NO.49/2019-CT

dated 09.10.2019. The applicant shall also declare

the eligibility or otherwise of the input tax credit

availed against the invoices related to the claim

period in the said format for enabling the proper

officer to determine the same. Self-certified copies

of invoices in relation to which the refund of ITC

is being claimed and which are declared as

eligible for ITC in Annexure-B, but which are not

populated in Form GSTR-2A, shall be uploaded

by the applicant along with the application in

Form GST RFD 01. It is emphasized that the

proper officer shall not insist on the submission of

an invoice (either original or duplicate) the details

of which are available in Form GSTR-2A of the

relevant period uploaded by the applicant.''

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by

another press release on 04.03.2018, it has been clarified as under:-

(iv)No automatic reversal of credit: There

shall not be any automatic reversal of input tax

credit from buyer on non-payment of tax by the

seller. In case of default in payment of tax by the

seller, recovery shall be made from the seller

however reversal of credit from buyer shall also

be an option available with the revenue

authorities to address exceptional situations like

missing dealer, closure of business by supplier of

supplier not having adequate assets etc.

6. It is therefore submitted that credit availed on the strength of

invoices issued by the supplier under the provisions of the Goods and

Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be denied as input tax credit was availed on

the strength of the invoices on which tax charged by the supplier of the

petitioner.

7. It is submitted that the mistake committed by the supplier in not

properly uploading the information in their GSTR-1 would not come in

the legitimate by way of availing input tax credit to the petitioner. It is

further submitted that the department has been adopting the

discriminatory between domestic and integrated supply of Good and

Services and this impugned orders are liable to be quashed. It is further

submitted that by clarification in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated

18.11.2019, refunds are being given in the case of reports claim refund

under Rule 89 of the respective CGST Rules under similar circumstances

whereas in the case of domestic supplier, no such discussion has been

given and therefore the result is in unfair discrimination. Attention was

also drawn to Rules 58 & 59 of CGST respective Rules under the

respective enactments which read pari-materia.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent

submits that the demand has been confirmed based on a proper show

cause notice issued to the petitioner and therefore the challenge to the

impugned Assessment Orders in these writ petitions are devoid of merits.

9. He further submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy

under Section 107 of the CGST and SGST Act and therefore the petitioner

should workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner in terms

of the above provisions of the Act. He therefore submits that though the

credit availed it can be utilised only if there is an evidence of payment of

tax and returns were filed by the suppliers in GSTR-1 which would get

captured in the GSTR-2A and merely because the petitioner has made a

claim on their returns in GSTR-3B, the petitioner is entitled to the credit

availed in the GSTR-3B.

10. It is submitted that the credit availed in GSTR-3B is only the

provisional and subject to a proper reconciliation of the data in GSTR-2A

and therefore the petitioner cannot claim credit on the invoice which were

not declared by the supplier in GSTR-1.

11. By way of re-joinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the problem on account of the mis-match between the datas

captured in GSTR-1 of the supplier, GSTR-3B of recipient on the strength

of the invoices and GSTR-2A is not new.

12. It is submitted that even in the context of Tamil Nadu Value

Added Tax, 2006, a dispute arose on account of the mismatch between

the datas captured by the department in their web-portal and the credit

availed by the dealers while in terms of relevant returns under the TNVAT

Act, 2006 read with 2007 rules and that the issue was finally resolved by

this Court in case of JKM Graphics Solutions Pvt., Ltd., Vs

Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai, (2017)

99 VST 343 (Mad).

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the

notice of this Court to a recent clarification of the Secretary to the

Commercial Department, dated 24.02.2021 Circular No.5 of 2021 by the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that

Section 42 of the CGST has not been fully implemented and therefore the

impugned orders cannot be sustained.

15. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader

for the respondents. I have also perused the circulars cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

16. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order demanding a

sum of Rs.17,53,171 /-being the difference in the ITC availed in Form

GSTR-3B which was auto populated in Form GSTR-2A.

17. The GST enactments and the rules made thereunder are a

complete code by themselves. The provisions in the GST Rules have been

well thought of and have been drafted using the vast experience gained

under the erstwhile MODVAT Rules under the erstwhile Central Excise

Rules, 1944 and its subsequent avatars under the Cenvat Credit Rules,

2001, 2002 and later under 2004 and under the various VAT enactments

and the VAT Rules made thereunder.

18. The respective State and Central GST Rules, 2017 have

incorporated rules in such a manner that there is hardly any scope for any

leakage of revenue. However, still loophole are scouted to get over the

law to evade tax.

19. Most of the difficulties faced in the implementation of GST law

was are on account of the technical glitches as returns and forms are

system driven and returns are filed electronically. The information

contained therein are supposed to get captured and auto populated at the

end customer/recipient of goods or services.

20. As far as the supplier of Goods and Services is concerned, the

supplier is required to file a monthly return Form GSTR-1 under Rule

59(1) of the State CGST Rule, 2017. This form is to be uploaded

electronically by the due date on the common portal by the supplier either

directly or through Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

21. The details of input supplied and tax paid thereon are to be

captured in Form GSTR-1 by the supplier. These details are required to

be sent to the recipients in Part A of Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-4A and

in Form GSTR-6A as the case may be through the common portal after

the due date of filing return of the Form GSTR-1.

22. The recipient is expected to compare to input tax credit availed

in Form GSTR-2, Form GSTR-4 , Form GSTR-6 as the case may be on

the basis of information contained in Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-4A or

Form GSTR-6A as the case may be furnished by the supplier.

23. If there is any variance between the information furnished in

Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-4A or Form GSTR-6A furnished by the

supplier and the credit tax availed in Form GSTR-2, the recipient is

required to furnish details of inward supplies added, corrected, deleted by

the recipient in Form GSTR-2, Form GSTR-4 and Form GSTR-6, in Form

GSTR-1A through the common portal.

24. The supplier may accept or reject the modification in its Form

GSTR-1 on receipt of Form GSTR-1A. Form GSTR-1 is required to be

amended by the supplier under Sub Rule 4 to Rule 59 of the CGST Rules

to the extent of modification. Sub Rule 4 to Rule 59 of the CGST Rules

reads as under:

“(4) The details of inward supplies added,

corrected or deleted by the recipient in his Form

GSTR-2 under Section 38 or Form GSTR-4 or

Form GSTR-6 under Section 39 shall be made

available to the supplier electronically in Form

GSTR-1A through the common portal and such

supplier may either accept or reject the

modifications made by the recipient and Form

GSTR-1 furnished earlier by the supplier shall

stand amended to the extent of modifications

accepted by him.”

25. The correction in Form GSTR-1 by supplier is to be

automatically reflected in Form GSTR-3B at the recipient end. Thus, the

final credit that can be availed by a recipient will depend on the

acceptance of information supplied by recipient in Form GSTR-1A to the

supplier.

26. In case, the suppliers accepts the same information in GSTR-3B

will have to get automatically auto populated on the output tax paid by

the supplier on the supply to the recipient. Thus, the system is fool proof

and leaves no scope for any confusion.

27. In case there is a glitch, it has to be corrected in accordance

with the procedure prescribed and the guidelines and circulars issued by

the Central Board of Indirect Taxes as Customs.

28. In case, corrections and amendments in Form GSTR-1A of the

recipient is not accepted by the supplier in its Form GSTR-1, the question

of availing input tax credit on the strength of invoices alone is not enough.

In case, the information is not corrected by the supplier in GSTR-1, the

input tax credit availed by the recipient is liable to be paid back.

29. Though some of the circulars and clarifications issued in the

context of exports have been cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, they are not relevant in the context of availing input tax credit at the threshold stage. In any event, these circulars are not binding this Court in terms of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s.Ratan Melting and Wire

Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1.

30. Therefore, I am refraining to make further comments on the

applicability of the circulars. I am of the view, these matters are best left to be resolved before the hierarchy of the Appellate Authority prescribed under the Act.

31. Further, the Court have recognized few exceptions to the rule

of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in

accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in

defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has

resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order

has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

None of these exceptions are attracted in the facts of the present case.

32. Admittedly, the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an

appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the

CGST Act, 2007. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained

ignoring the statutory dispensation.

33. Therefore, these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution are liable to be dismissed. I am therefore inclined to dismiss

the present writ petitions. I however give liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of

thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such an

appeal is filed within such time, the appeal shall be numbered and taken

up for hearing on its turn.

34. These writ petitions stand dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

C.SARAVANAN, J.