M/S Kolkata Bricks PVT. LTD vs. Additional Commissioner Central Tax And Ors

Held

The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The court reasoned that the issue of whether the impugned order was served on the petitioner involved a disputed question of fact, evidenced by conflicting postal endorsements. Such factual disputes, requiring evidence, cannot be adjudicated by a writ court exercising its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to avail any other remedy available under the law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kolkata Bricks Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner under the CGST Act. The petitioner alleged non-service of the impugned order, while the revenue contended that the order was sent to the petitioner's registered address and postal endorsements indicated the petitioner had left the premises. The writ court noted that this presented a highly disputed question of fact requiring evidence, which is not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ court can entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under the CGST Act, which is an appellable order under the statute, when the maintainability of the petition hinges on a disputed question of fact regarding the service of the order? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, provisions of the CGST Act relating to appeals). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the order through a writ petition, alleging non-service. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the order was properly served at the registered address and that the petitioner's claim of non-service raised a disputed question of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.