M/S.Manappuram Jewellers vs. The Asst.Commissioner (Assessment)

Held

The Court held that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge was legally unassailable. It reiterated the principle that factual adjudication of matters is best left to statutory authorities, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolving disputes that are essentially based on unestablished factual aspects. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition and relegate the appellant to their alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order. The Court also directed that if the appellant files the statutory appeal within three weeks of receiving the judgment, the Appellate Authority should consider it as filed within time and adjudicate it on merits within three months of receipt. The issue regarding input tax credit, pending before a Full Bench, was not decided in this appeal.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Manappuram Jewellers, filed a Writ Appeal challenging a judgment that dismissed their Writ Petition. The Writ Petition had impugned an assessment order (Ext.P4) which dealt with multiple issues. One significant issue concerned the appellant's entitlement to input tax credit when they possessed a valid invoice showing tax payment by the supplier, but lacked proof of the supplier actually remitting the tax to the government. This specific issue was noted as pending before a Full Bench of the High Court due to conflicting Division Bench decisions. However, other issues adjudicated in the assessment order were factual in nature.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to input tax credit in circumstances where they received a valid invoice showing tax payment by the supplier, but there was no proof of actual payment of tax by the supplier to the Government, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were entitled to input tax credit based on a valid invoice, and the absence of proof of the supplier's actual tax payment to the government should not disentitle them. The petitioner also implicitly challenged the assessment order on other factual grounds. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that factual adjudication of matters is best undertaken by statutory authorities, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for resolving disputes based on unestablished factual aspects. They supported the dismissal of the writ petition and the direction to pursue the alternate remedy.