Brijmohan Avinash Chachan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - Ii

Held

The Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner involved disputed questions of fact that required the appreciation of evidence. The Court reasoned that such matters cannot be adjudicated in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that it is the statutory duty of the assessee to produce all relevant documentary evidence, including proof of movement of goods, before the assessing authority. Mere production of invoices or inter se documents without substantiating the actual movement of goods, as required by law, is insufficient. The Court found that the petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate authority under the GST Act. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions and dismissed them, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Brijmohan Avinash Chachan, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging orders passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Madurai Rural (East) Circle. The impugned orders, dated 30.05.2025, pertained to GST for the periods 2020-21 and 2021-22, with Order Reference Nos. ZD330525342582H and ZD330525343834B respectively, along with Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed without considering original invoices and supporting documentary evidence. However, the petitioner also conceded that the dispute involved appreciation of documentary evidence regarding the movement of goods, and if such evidence was not accepted, the proper recourse would be to appeal to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate disputed questions of fact concerning the appreciation of documentary evidence relating to the movement of goods under the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without considering crucial documentary evidence, including original invoices, and therefore, the assessment was illegal and in violation of natural justice. They sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondents would rely on the statutory framework which mandates the assessee to produce evidence and the availability of an alternative appellate remedy for disputes involving factual appreciation.