Input Tax Credit requires valid documentation proving the physical movement of goods; the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate claims, and penalties are subject to careful assessment.

ORDER :

C. SARAVANAN, J.

Mr.C.Harsharaj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.

2. These Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

3. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Orders of the 1^st Respondent Appellate Authority dated 29.08.2025 which have accompanied summary of the order in Form GST APL - 04 dated 30.09.2025 for the respective tax periods 2017 – 2018 to 2020 - 2021.

4. By the impugned order, the Petitioner’s appeal against impugned orders passed under Section 122(1)(ii) all dated 24.03.2021 have been rejected.

5. The 2^nd Respondent / Original Authority passed under Section 122(1)(ii) all dated 24.03.2021 pursuant to an inspection held on 12.09.2020 at the premises of the Petitioner. Thereafter, notices were issued to the Petitioner for the respective tax periods in Form GST – DRC – 01 which called upon the Petitioner to furnish certain documents which were partly furnished. These documents were also produced before the 1^st Respondent / Appellate Authority who has found no reasons to interfere with the orders dated 24.03.2021 of the 2^nd Respondent vide respective impugned orders.

6. W.P.No.160 of 2026, the Petitioner has also challenged the impugned bank attachment proceedings initiated by the office of the 2^nd Respondent.

7. The Petitioner appears to be a dealer in Timber and Woods products. The allegations against the Petitioner was that the Petitioner has not produced any documents to prove that there was physical movement of the goods either into the Petitioner’s premises or outside the Petitioner’s premises and that the Input Tax Credit was not only wrongly availed but also passed by the Petitioner on the strength of various invoices and therefore the Petitioner was liable to penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the respective GST enactments.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would endeavor to demonstrate and establish the case that there was a perversity in the impugned orders passed by the respective Respondents as the Petitioner has filed all the documents before the Respondents. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submitted that the respective Respondents have overlooked the same to confirm the penalty of the above provisions of the respective GST enactments.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the documents were furnished in two parcels both before the Respondent, which have been overlooked. That apart, it is submitted that the 1^st Respondent while passing impugned orders rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner has erroneously concluded that the Petitioner was a non existent dealer and despite the fact that there was an inspection on 10.09.2020 and 12.09.2020 by the office of the 2^nd Respondent at the Petitioner’s place of business. It is therefore submitted that the 1^st Respondent rejecting the appeal is inspired from an erroneous appreciation of facts and therefore it has been incorrectly concluded that the Petitioner has erroneously passed on the Input Tax Credit to various persons with whom the Petitioner had transaction by way of supply.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents on the other hand would submit that there is no merits in the challenge to the respective impugned orders and therefore these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed both on account of existence of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal which is likely to be constituted in few weeks time and on merits.

11. It is submitted that th