Hi-tech Arai Private Limited vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Others
(Madras High Court, Tamilnadu)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Hi-tech Arai Private Limited
The Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Others
Madras High Court
Jul 1, 2022
Order No.
W.P.(MD) No.13799 of 2022 in W.M.P.(MD)No.9802 of 2022
TR Citation
2022 (7) TR 6004
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the first respondent herein to consider and pass order on the petition/application, dated 12.05.2022 filed by the petitioner before the first respondent under Section 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 within the time as stipulated by this Court.

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had given an application on 12.05.2022 to the first respondent to consider his representation of giving input credit for the extended days as per Section 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The second respondent had issued a show cause notice disallowing credit for 20 invoices to the tune of Rs.23,71,301/-, since in the books of accounts, the same has not been entered upon from the appointed date, i.e. on 01.07.2017, the petitioner is not eligible for any input credit.

3.According to the petitioner, as per Section 140(5) of the GGST Act, 2017, initially thirty days period will be given for taking credit. Thereafter, the first respondent can give an extended period for another thirty days. The disallowed credit for the 20 invoices pertains to the second period. The petitioner is entitled for the credit, which has been disallowed. After three years, the show cause notice has been issued, which is not proper. In view of the same, the first respondent/Commissioner may be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 12.05.2022 and if the same is considered, the issuance of show cause notice would become irrelevant.

4.Mr.K.Prabhu, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is only a show cause notice, at this stage the petitioner cannot file this petition. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved and got merits and substance, he has to produce the relevant records and reply to the show cause notice, wherein he would be given a personal hearing, where he can appear along with the documents, satisfy the authorities. If the contention of the petitioner is reasonable, the same would be accepted, otherwise, further action it would be taken.

5.In view of the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

6.However, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the petitioner about the outcome of the same. It is made clear that pendency of the petitioner’s representation before the first respondent will no way affect the second respondent to proceed with this show cause notice for further action.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • hi tech arai private limited vs the commissioner central goods and service tax and others madras high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096