M/S. A.K. Enterprise Rep. By Alok Kundu vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Howrah Zone And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, M/s. A.K. Enterprise, represented by its proprietor Alok Kundu, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated August 27, 2024, passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 17085 of 2024. The writ petition had challenged an adjudication order issued under Section 74 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The core of the dispute involved the appellant's ability to prove the sufficient movement of goods. The State/respondents highlighted substantial transactions and the cancellation of suppliers' registrations, suggesting that the appellant's claim of moving materials by handcart required adequate proof, given the significant invoice values.
Held
The Court held that the issue of whether the appellant had provided sufficient proof for the movement of goods could not be decided in a writ petition. The learned Single Bench was therefore correct in directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that complex factual disputes requiring extensive evidence, such as proving the movement of goods in a GST matter, are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and should be resolved through the statutory appellate mechanism. The Court directed that if the appellant files a statutory appeal within 30 days of receiving a server copy of this order, it shall not be rejected on grounds of limitation but shall be heard and decided on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant had provided sufficient proof for the movement of goods, as required under Section 74 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The appellant contended that they had sufficient proof for the movement of goods. (Specific arguments not detailed in the judgment). Revenue's Argument: The State/respondents argued that the appellant had not provided adequate proof for the movement of goods. They pointed to substantial transactions and the cancellation of suppliers' registrations, questioning the appellant's assertion that materials were shifted by handcart, which they argued required substantial evidence. They relied on the annexures to the show cause notice.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)
This intra- Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated August 27, 2024 in W.P.A. 17085 of 2024. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged an adjudication order passed under section 74 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. 2 2
The issue to be proved by the appellant is whether it had sufficient proof for movement of goods.
It is pointed out by the learned senior advocate appearing for the State/respondents that huge transactions were made and all those suppliers’ registration had been cancelled. It is pointed out from the annexures to the show cause notice that invoice values for each of the months mentioned therein are substantial and the theory that the materials were shifted to the place of business of the appellant by handcart is a matter to be established by adequate proof.
This issue, therefore, cannot be decided in a writ petition and hence the learned Single Bench was right in relegating the petitioner to file a statutory appeal.
Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly,
the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.
If the appellant files the statutory appeal before the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this order, the appeal shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation but shall be heard and decided on merits and in accordance with law.
No costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.