Digital Abhiyan PVT LTD And Anr vs. The Deputy Comm. Of Revenue Salt Lake Charge Wbgst And Ors

Held

The High Court held that while the learned Single Bench had entertained the writ petition, the appellants had presented a case where they possessed all relevant documents to establish the genuineness of inward supplies. Considering this, the Court was of the view that granting one more opportunity to the appellants to present their case before the adjudicating authority was appropriate. The Court reasoned that a fresh consideration of the matter, allowing the appellants to submit all supporting documents, including bank statements, and affording them a personal hearing, would ensure a proper adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where a taxpayer claims to possess all necessary documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions and seeks a fair opportunity to present it, the adjudicating authority should grant such an opportunity, especially when the initial adjudication might have overlooked such evidence. The Court accordingly disposed of the appeal and the writ petition by remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. No coercive steps were to be taken pursuant to the assessment order dated April 21, 2024, until the fresh exercise was concluded. The appellants were directed to cooperate and not seek adjournments.

Facts

The appellants, Digital Abhiyan Private Limited & Anr., filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated September 5, 2024, passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 18140 of 2024. The writ petition had challenged an adjudication order dated April 21, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The adjudication order demanded tax and imposed penalty, holding that mere annexation of invoices for inward supplies was insufficient to avail input tax credit without fulfilling other conditions like genuine receipt of supplies, making payment, and actual payment of impugned taxes. The appellants contended that the transactions with M/s. Google India Private Limited were genuine and sought an opportunity to produce contemporaneous documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the adjudication order dated April 21, 2024, without granting an interim order, thereby directing the filing of affidavits? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's Arguments: The appellants argued that the adjudication order was passed without considering their submissions and that they needed an opportunity to produce all contemporaneous documents, including bank statements, to establish the genuineness of inward supplies and the transactions with M/s. Google India Private Limited. They sought a fresh opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or the State before the High Court in the appeal. However, the adjudication order itself indicated that the revenue's stance was that the appellants failed to meet the statutory conditions for availing input tax credit.