Writ Petition Based on Mere Apprehension or Proposed Action Not Maintainable, Rules Court.

1. We are not inclined to grant any interim relief to the Petitioners for the reason that the Petitioners have approached this Court purely on an apprehension. It is the petitioners’ contention that the Petitioners that the Petitioners are pressurized by Respondent No.2 as also duly informed by Respondent No.1 to reverse the Input Tax Credit (for short “ITC”) to be availed by the Petitioners pertaining to the months of February-2019 and March-2019 allegedly on the ground that the same was availed beyond the prescribed time limit, failing which a grave coercive action would be taken against the Petitioners.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for Union of India and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned AGP have drawn our attention to the respective reply Affidavits to submit that the said contentions as raised by the Petitioners are untenable. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for Union of India has drawn our attention to paragraph No. 4.21 of the reply Affidavit in which it is stated on behalf of Union of India that Audit-I Mumbai, CGST Commissionerate had given intimation dated 24.03.2021 to the Petitioners for conducting audit and that Petitioners were called upon to submit requisite documents relating to the audit in terms of Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “CGST Act”). It is stated that the Petitioners vide letter dated 31.03.2021 had requested for time of 35 days to be given to them to submit documents, and despite such time being granted, Petitioners had not submitted documents in Audit-I Commissionerate till filing of such Affidavit. It is stated that the Respondents had not made any communication with the Petitioners for reversal of ITC. It is submitted that in these circumstances, further steps in accordance with the procedure in law would be required to be taken by all respondents. If this be the position, it appears to us that the averments made in the Petition are not correct more particularly considering that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. In any event merely on apprehension and on any proposed action the Petition would certainly not maintainable, when the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “CGST Act”) categorically provides for a procedure for assessment. It is for the Assessing Officer that considering the facts and circumstances of the case that appropriate action has to be taken including issuance of Show Cause Notice.

4. It is quite clear that the Petitioners are avoiding GST audit and have not responded to the request of the Department to submit the accounts and have filed the present Petition. Admittedly, no Show Cause Notice also been issued. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Petitioners does not warrant any interim order to be passed. Prayer for interim relief accordingly cannot be entertained.

5. As the vires of the provisions of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act has been challenged by the Petitioners, on the earlier occasion a coordinate Bench by this Court had issued notice to the Attorney General of India. However, it prima facie appears that the adjudication on such prayers itself is academic in the present Petition.

6. Accordingly, list the Petition to be heard on 21st July, 2023. Respondents waives service.

7. Liberty to Respondents to file appropriate Affidavit including on any objections the respondents intend to raise on all issues.

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] [G.S.KULKARNI, J.]