M/S Anand Granites vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that issues primarily based on factual aspects, which require verification from records or adduction of evidence, are not suitable for adjudication under its writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the respondents had rightly submitted that the impugned order was appealable. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to approach the Appellate Forum against the order. The Court observed that the period for filing the appeal still survived due to extensions granted by the Supreme Court. The interlocutory applications were also disposed of as no purpose would be served by allowing them, as all issues could be agitated before the appellate authority. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The petitioner was granted three weeks to file the appeal, which would be considered and disposed of on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Anand Granites, approached the High Court challenging proceedings dated July 29, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Circle-II, Anantapuramu (Respondent No. 1). These proceedings imposed tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed illegally, without proper consideration, and contrary to factual aspects. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the matter could be appealed before the appellate authority, arguing the impugned order was well-reasoned based on the petitioner's own produced materials. The petitioner also filed several interlocutory applications seeking suspension of the impugned order and a notice, impleading parties, and amendment of the writ petition's prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the appropriate forum for adjudicating issues primarily based on factual aspects requiring verification from records or adduction of evidence, particularly when an alternative appellate remedy is available under the IGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed by Respondent No. 1 was patently illegal, lacking proper consideration, and contrary to the factual aspects of the matter. They sought to declare the proceedings without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, and also sought disciplinary action against an officer for alleged fabrication of summons and misuse of GST forms. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the matter could be taken up in appeal before the appellate authority. They further argued that the impugned order was well-discussed on both facts and law, and based on materials produced by the petitioner before the authority. They also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.