Samir Sadhukhan vs. Assistant Commisioner Of CGST And Cx, Shyambazar Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Samir Sadhukhan, filed a writ petition challenging recovery notices dated September 15, 2023, and October 16, 2023. These notices were issued for the recovery of a demand arising from an adjudication order dated March 22, 2023. The petitioner's primary contention was that the adjudication order was never served upon him. The respondent CGST authority, represented by Mr. Maiti, countered by stating that the petitioner had suppressed facts and made incorrect statements. The authority claimed the adjudication order was dispatched to the petitioner via Registered Post on March 24, 2023, to the address 118, Raja Dinendra Street, Kolkata-700 004. The petitioner disputed the correctness of this dispatching address, although the show-cause cum demand notice, adjudication order, and recovery notices all bore the same address.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the involvement of highly disputed questions of facts and evidence. The Court noted the petitioner's dispute regarding the service of the adjudication order, specifically concerning the dispatching address. However, it also observed that the respondent CGST authority presented evidence suggesting the order was dispatched via Registered Post to the same address that appeared on the show-cause notice, adjudication order, and recovery notices. Given this factual dispute concerning the service of the adjudication order, the Court found itself disinclined to entertain the writ petition, which is typically not the appropriate forum for resolving complex factual disputes requiring detailed evidence. The Court directed that the documents submitted by the CGST authority be kept on record and a copy be provided to the petitioner's counsel.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated March 22, 2023, was validly served upon the petitioner, Samir Sadhukhan, considering his dispute regarding the dispatching address? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of service of notice under GST law). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the recovery notices were illegal because the adjudication order, which formed the basis of the demand, was never served on him. He disputed the address used for dispatch, implying that service was not effected. Revenue's Argument: The respondent CGST authority contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. They asserted that the adjudication order was dispatched to the petitioner via Registered Post on March 24, 2023, to the address 118, Raja Dinendra Street, Kolkata-700 004. They highlighted that this same address was used in the show-cause cum demand notice, the adjudication order itself, and the impugned recovery notices, suggesting the address was correct and known to the petitioner.