Patna High Court
M/S Okaya Power Private Limited vs The Union Of India on 19 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2189 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Okaya Power Private Limited, having its office at Village - Illahibag,
Mauza - Bairiya, P.S. - Gopalpur, Patna through its authorized representative
Monika Bansal, aged about 34 Years, D/o - Jainarain Bansal, Residing at 18,
Nangloi, Extension 1, P.S. - Nangloi, District - West Delhi, Pin - 110041.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry
of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial
Tax Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Central Division,
Patna.
6. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Patliputra Circle, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Madan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Patna High Court CWJC No.2189 of 2025 dt.19-08-2025
Date : 19-08-2025
Heard Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-7
for the State.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2025 passed
by this Court, the respondent authority has filed a counter
affidavit. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit has been placed
before this Court by learned GP-7.
3. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit reads as
hereunder :-
"8. That it is humbly submitted that in
compliance of the order of Hon'ble Court, the
respondent adjudicating authority has cross verified
the claims of the recipients of goods who have claimed
in the certificates (annexed to the writ petition) to
have reversed the input tax credit attributable to the
goods purportedly returned by them to the petitioner.
For verifying the claims, the adjudicating authority
examined the returns of the aforesaid recipients,
which (returns) are available on GST portal. But the
returns filed by the recipients prove that the claims are
false except in the case of M/S A. Η. Enterprises and
M/S I. I. N. Traders, who have reversed ITC
amounting to Rs. 5274/40 and Rs.15409/00 each
under CGST and BGST respectively. No input tax
credit relatable to the goods purportedly returned by
the recipients has been reversed by the remaining 8
recipients who have purportedly furnished the
certificates annexed to the writ petition. The
respondents are annexing hereto a copy each of the
returns in form GSTR-3B (annual summary in cases
where annual returns have been filed) filed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2189 of 2025 dt.19-08-2025
recipients. A perusal of item no. 4(B) of the returns in
form GSTR-3B filed by the recipients shows that the
amount of ITC reversed is reflected as ZERO in all the
returns except the returns furnished by M/s A.H.
Enterprises and M/s I.I.N. Traders. Further, a perusal
of GSTR-9 (annual return) filed by the recipients and
annexed hereto for ready reference shows that under
Table 7(I), total input tax credit (ITC) reversed has
been shown as zero. Similarly, a perusal of table
no.8(D) of the annual returns filed by the recipients
and available on the GST portal also shows that the
difference between ITC available to the recipients as
per GSTR-2A and the ITC availed by them is a
negative figure in most of the cases, which proves that
the recipients have availed higher input tax credit in
comparison with their ITC eligibility. This
substantiates that except M/s A.H. Enterprises and
M/s I.I.N. Traders, the recipients have not reversed the
input tax credit on purported return of goods to the
petitioner by them."
4. In view of what has transpired in paragraph 8 of
the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that these are the matters of facts which may be adjudicated by
the Tribunal, which is the second appellate authority under the
CGST/BGST Act and, therefore, he would withdraw this writ
application in order to avail his remedy before the Tribunal as
and when constituted.
5. Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-7 for the State,
has no objection to the petitioner availing the alternative
statutory remedy in terms of Section 112 of the CGST/BGST
Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2189 of 2025 dt.19-08-2025
6. Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned counsel for
the petitioner however submits that he would require an interim
order of stay on the recovery of demand.
7. To this, learned GP-7 has informed this Court
that if the petitioner applied before the proper officer for stay on
the recovery of demand, the same will be considered
automatically upon deposit of 10% of the amount.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we permit
the petitioner to withdraw this writ application with liberty to
avail its remedy before the Tribunal as and when constituted,
within the given period of limitation in accordance with law.
9. This application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20/08/2025
Transmission Date N/A
