Roshan Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Court of India)
The appellant challenged an adjudication order dated 24 July 2024, by which the adjudicating authority, following de novo adjudication pursuant to an earlier order dated 7 May 2024 in M.A.T. 854 of 2024, levied tax, interest and penalty under the C.G.S.T./W.B.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The appellant had approached the High Court against the adjudication order, contending, among other things, that documents concerning movement of goods had been produced, while the Fastag Portal details could not be accessed by the appellant and the Department ought to have provided the necessary information. Grounds concerning the effect of statements made by the supplier during cross-examination were also raised.
The High Court noted that the appellant had an effective and efficacious statutory appellate remedy against the adjudication order. It observed that determining the correctness of the impugned order required adjudication of disputed facts, including matters disputed and denied by the Department. The High Court held that the appellate authority could assess the factual position, call for records if necessary, and direct its office to access the Fastag Portal. It therefore declined to exercise discretion in the writ proceedings and held that the appellant should not bypass the statutory appellate remedy.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and the connected application, while directing the appellant to file a statutory appeal. It provided that if the appeal was filed within 60 days from receipt of the server copy of the judgment and order, the appellate authority would entertain it without reference to limitation, subject to compliance with other conditions. The appellate authority was directed to consider all grounds and documents, provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative, and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. The appellant was also permitted to specifically raise the issue concerning the Fastag details.
The matter thereafter reached the Supreme Court. After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court agreed that the petitioner should approach the Appellate Authority with an appropriate appeal, as already directed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court granted six weeks’ time to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original, described as the final order of assessment. It further directed that, if the appeal was filed within six weeks, it should be taken up expeditiously and decided in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court expressly clarified that the appeal would have to be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition. The petitioner was permitted to raise all contentions available in accordance with law. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.
Thus, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court’s direction that the petitioner pursue the statutory appellate remedy. It specifically granted six weeks for filing the appeal and directed its expeditious consideration on merits.
Read High Court Judgment in this case: Roshan Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The High Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, observed in Paras 8 and 9 respectively as under:-
“8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with the connected application (IA.No. CAN 1 of 2025) with a direction to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgment and order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to limitation and subject to compliance of other conditions upon the appellant. The appellate authority shall consider all grounds that may be canvassed by the appellant and the documents submitted by them and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant, pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law.
9. The appellant will be entitled to make a specific request to the appellate authority with regard to the Fastag details, which according to the appellant, is a very vital document. This aspect shall be canvassed by the appellant before the appellate authority, which shall be taken note of in accordance with law.”
2. We heard Mr. Vinay Shraff, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Department.
3. We are of the view that the petitioner should go before the Appellate Authority with an appropriate appeal as already directed by the High Court.
4. We grant six weeks’ time to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal against the order-in-original i.e. the final order of assessment.
5. It is needless to clarify that the appeal shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced in any manner by the observations made by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order-in-original passed by the Authority.
6. If any appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be taken up for hearing expeditiously and be decided in accordance with law.
7. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions available to him in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid, this Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
