Md Yusuf vs. State Tax Officer, Bureau Of Investigation (South Bengal) Kharagpur Zone And Anr

Held

The Court held that the issues involved, namely the discrepancy in the registration of teak sawn timber not tallying with declarations in the e-way bill and invoices, and the non-existence of the consignor at their registered place of business, are highly disputed questions of fact. The Court observed that in its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it cannot function as a fact-finding and verification authority for transported goods. Therefore, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the reasons for the detention of goods and the order passed under Section 129(1) of the Act, the appropriate recourse is to approach the appellate forum under Section 107 of the Act. The Court directed the learned Government Pleader to provide a copy of the instruction to the petitioner's counsel, who should then pursue the statutory remedy before the appellate forum or the concerned officer.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Yusuf, challenged an order passed by the respondent GST authority under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act and WBGST Act, 2017, dated August 10, 2022. The respondent State GST authority, through written instructions, stated that a physical verification of goods on August 10, 2022, revealed approximately 312 cubic feet of teak sawn timber in excess of what was declared in the e-way bill and invoice. The measurements of the timber also did not cohere with the measurement slip. Furthermore, paper verification indicated the consignor was non-existent at their registered place of business, suggesting an attempt to avoid tax liability. Consequently, the goods were seized and the vehicle detained under Section 129 of the WBGST Act, 2017, with notice (GST MOV 06) issued on August 10, 2022. A show cause notice (GST MOV 07) was subsequently issued on August 11, 2022, to the driver, Mani N., for contravention of Section 68 read with Section 129 and Rule 138.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can act as a fact-finding authority to adjudicate disputes regarding the discrepancy in the quantity and measurement of teak sawn timber, and the existence of the consignor, when these are highly disputed questions of fact? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the GST authority. (No specific arguments recorded for the petitioner beyond the challenge itself). Revenue/State's Contention: The State argued that the discrepancies found during physical verification (excess timber, inconsistent measurements) and the non-existence of the consignor at the registered address constitute contraventions of the GST Act and Rules. They contended that these are disputed questions of fact which the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, is not equipped to decide. The State relied on the findings documented in GST MOV-03, MOV-04, MOV-06, and MOV-07, and the alleged attempt by the consignor to avoid tax liability.