Shree Shyam Inorganics Private Limited And Anr. vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The appellants, Shree Shyam Inorganics Private Limited and another, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated 21.03.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 4703 of 2022. The original writ petition sought a writ of mandamus to set aside a penalty imposed via a notice in Form GST MOV-04 dated 09.02.2022. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to file a statutory appeal. The appellants argued that the goods were volatile, necessitating their release, for which they furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 9,10,824.00 and executed a bond for the same amount. Provisional release of goods was granted. The appellants were willing to pursue the alternative remedy but sought relief concerning the bank guarantee.

Held

The Court held that the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to file a statutory appeal was just and proper, as the factual matrix required examination which could not be undertaken in a writ petition. While affirming the learned Single Judge's order and dismissing the appeal, the Court slightly modified the directions. The appellants were permitted to substitute the existing bank guarantee of Rs. 9,10,824.00 with a fresh bank guarantee of Rs. 8,10,824.00. They were directed to proceed as provided under Section 84(1) of the Act within 3 days of furnishing the fresh bank guarantee. If the amount was paid along with the appeal, the appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal without reference to limitation and dispose of it on merits. The ratio is that while statutory remedies are to be preferred for factual adjudication, High Courts can modify directions to facilitate the pursuit of such remedies, especially concerning financial securities furnished.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellants to file a statutory appeal instead of adjudicating the matter in a writ petition, particularly when the factual matrix required examination? Petitioner's contention: The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge should have considered the matter on merits within the writ petition, given the circumstances, especially the furnishing of a bank guarantee for Rs. 9,10,824.00 and the need for provisional release of volatile goods. They sought some relief concerning this bank guarantee. Revenue's contention: The State respondents, through their counsel, supported the order of the learned Single Judge, arguing that the factual matrix necessitated a statutory appeal and could not be effectively decided in a writ petition.