Ardhendu Bikash Das vs. Joint Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Haldia Commissionarate And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Ardhendu Bikash Das, proprietor of M/s. Ardhendu Bikash Das, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate. The writ petition was dismissed. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, interim directions were issued, including a direction for the appellant to pay Rs. 25 lacs to lift the attachment of his bank account. Subsequently, it was revealed that the respondent Department had recovered Rs. 3,98,09,291.85/- through bank attachment, leading to the deletion of the Rs. 25 lacs payment direction. The High Court noted that the issues involved the appellant's modus operandi in depositing sums under the pretext of paying taxes while filing nil returns, which required factual adjudication.

Held

The Court held that the intricate factual issues, particularly the appellant's modus operandi in depositing sums under the pretext of paying taxes while filing nil returns, require adjudication before the appellate authority and cannot be decided based on affidavits in a writ petition. Therefore, the appellant cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy. Regarding the service of the adjudication order, while the appellant claimed non-service, the respondent asserted service with documentary evidence. However, to prevent the appellant from being disadvantaged, the Court granted liberty to file an appeal by treating the photocopy of the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 as a true/certified copy. The appeal is to be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to limitation if presented within two months from the receipt of the server copy of the High Court's order. The merits of the matter were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in a writ petition, can adjudicate complex factual issues concerning the appellant's tax deposit methods and the filing of nil returns, or if the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction and availability of alternative remedies). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 was not served. Additionally, sought to bypass the appellate remedy due to the factual complexities and the amount already recovered by the department. Respondent CGST: Contended that the adjudication order was served on the appellant on 06.04.2022, evidenced by a track report produced before the learned Single Judge.