Bajh Industries PVT LTD vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Bajh Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash GST notices (MOV-04, MOV-06, MOV-07, DRC-01) issued by the WBGST authority. The petitioner's case involved factual disputes regarding its business of selling bitumen emulsion, the intended buyer (SRM Plasto Private Limited), the necessity of transferring invoices to the buyer's godown in Assam, and whether the detained vehicle carrying the goods was physically verified. The petitioner also sought adjudication on whether excess weight was due to the bitumen emulsion being in different containers and the weight of those containers. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities issued GST MOV-09, which was not initially part of the challenge.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request for adjudication on the factual disputes, such as the nature of its business, the buyer's intent, the necessity of invoice transfer, and the reasons for vehicle detention and excess weight, cannot be entertained under its writ jurisdiction. The Court found that these issues are matters of fact and evidence, not questions of jurisdiction or violations of natural justice, which are typically grounds for entertaining a writ petition. The Court explicitly stated it failed to understand how these factual matters could be considered questions of jurisdiction or law. Consequently, as the petitioner ultimately did not wish to proceed with the matter, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. No specific findings were made on the merits of the GST notices themselves.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can act as a fact-finding and investigating authority to adjudicate disputes concerning the petitioner's business of selling bitumen emulsion, the buyer's intent, the transfer of invoices, and the reasons for vehicle detention and excess weight, as required by the petitioner? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the writ court should adjudicate on the factual matrix presented, implying these issues fall within the court's purview for resolution. Revenue (State): Contended that the issues raised by the petitioner are primarily based on facts and evidence, not questions of jurisdiction or law, and therefore not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The Government Pleader also noted the issuance of MOV-09 during the writ petition's pendency, which was not the subject of the original petition.