O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed in Order-in-Original No. 15/2024-25 (GST) by the respondent. By the said impugned order, the demand proposed in the notice preceding the aforesaid order has been confirmed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements of the provisions under Sections 16 of the respective GST Enactment Act, and therefore is entitled to a valid input tax credit. However, since the supplier failed to make payment, the petitioner has now been directed to reverse the input tax credit availed on such transactions.

3. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that it is a detailed order which has considered the petitioner’s reply and the provisions of the GST Enactment. Therefore, there appears to be no scope for interference with the impugned order, as no procedural irregularity or infirmity has noticed warranting an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. It is further observed that the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned order before the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals-I), Chennai–34. Considering that the petitioner intends