M/S. Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

The k:arned counsel for the petitioner during course of submission has specifically drawn the attention of the Court to inferences drawn in the impugned order against the petitioner for not producing physical copies of the delivery chzrllans concerning the job work turnover which are admittedly missing frorn the respondents' possession. The respondents have ignored crucial evidence filed by the petitioner in the form of declarations/confirmations issued by seven of its job work vendors confirming the fact that the concerned tumovers as appearing in their Ledgers and Books were pertaining to job work transactions only, but not in relation to an outright supply of goods. However, the l" respondent has conveniently and deliberately even not referred to the said declarations and not made any enquiry with the said job workers to understand the veracity ,rf their confirmations. It has proceeded on a roving and misguided enquiry and put many grounds against the petitioner which were never put on notice prior 1o the passing of the order. Petitioner has also taken the ground that the invocatic,n of Section 74 of the TGSTAct/CGST Act is without juri iction. Petitioner has filed prescribed retums in Form GST-ITC-04 evidencing that the movement of goods were for the purpose of job works alone. The impugned proceedings suffer from lack of fairness and are biased. The respondent It authorities lLave denied opportunity to the petitioner to veri8r the files in IJ R original on 1,8.12.2025 misrepresenting the Court's order dated 12.12.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider all objections and grounds giving fair opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.

Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has strongly objected to the maintainability of the writ petition. He has also sought to draw the attention of the Court to the findings of the Assessing Officer specifically on the allegations ofjob work and quantities declared in GST-ITC-04 versus Job Work Register seized during inspection. He has also referred to the findings of the Assessing Officer that the tax payer could not produce delivery challans issued for job work that are noted in the GST-ITC-O4 statement. More over, the job workers were not registered for job work services as per the Goods and Services Tax ldentification Number (GSTIN). [t is submitted that the petitioner has by-passed the statutory remedy of appeal. The grounds raised by the petitioner herein relating to findings of the Assessing Officer on merit should be raised before the appellate authority. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.29376 of 2025 in the case of lWs. A.S.Met Corp Private Limited v. / Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) dated 06.10.2025. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the grounds urged. We have also taken note of the materials placed from record by \ \ the rival parties.

I'he petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(l) of TGST Act/OGST Act. The writ petition has been preferred before expiry of the appeal peric,d of three months prescribed under Section 107(4) of the TGST AcI/CGST ltct.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to invoke the writ juri iction of the Court by assailing the findings of the assessing authority on merirs specifically relating to rejection of the claim relating to job works staternent and declarations submitted by the petitioner

We a1e of the view that the findings rendered by the Assessing Off,rcer on merits can lrc properly considered on facts and documentary evidence as are relied upon by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Therefore, any observation made on merits of the findings of the assessing authority would not be proper, lt:st it may prejudice the case of the parties. We are of the view that the juri iction of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate on the impugned proceedings under the TGST AcI/CGST Act is not in question. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on grounds of availability of statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all such grounds on rnerits and in law before the appellate authority. g. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to \ \ costs.

PSK. GJP fu,