Matter involving adjudication of facts cannot be entertained under Article 226

K. Sanalkumar Vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence) (Kerala High Court)

Kerala High Court proceeding finalized against the petitioner based on certain computer records cannot be challenged before High Court as alternative remedies before the Appellate Authority is available before the petitioner. Matter involving adjudication of facts is not possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Facts-

The petitioner suffered Ext. P8 order under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018- 2019 and 2019-2020. The petitioner stated that the entire proceedings are vitiated. The petitioner alleged that the proceedings have been concluded based on certain materials allegedly recovered from the business premises of the petitioner including some computer data etc. However, the petitioner was never given copies of the data allegedly recovered from the petitioner and the Officer has arbitrarily taken some figures to arrive at his conclusions. It is submitted that though the petitioner brought this matter to the notice of the Officer by filing rectification applications, the same has not been considered.

Conclusion-

It is true that some of these recoveries relate to certain computer records which have been relied on to finalise the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the fact that the proceedings refer to details/data recovered from computer systems does not compel me to hold that Ext.P8 should be interfered with at this stage in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming that the case of the petitioner, that, such records were not shared with the petitioner is correct, it is for the petitioner to seek remedies before the Appellate Authority as the matter clearly involves an adjudication of the facts, which is not possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

The petitioner suffered Ext.P8 order under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018­2019 and 2019-2020. Though the petitioner filed separate applications for rectification, the same have also been rejected.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is submitted that the proceedings have been concluded on the basis of certain materials allegedly recovered from the business premises of the petitioner including some computer data etc. It is submitted that the petitioner was never given copies of the data allegedly recovered from the petitioner and the Officer has arbitrarily taken some figure to arrive at his conclusions. It is submitted that though the petitioner brought this matter to the notice of the Officer by filing rectification applications, the same has not been considered. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also filed a representation to the Commissioner of the State Goods and Services Tax Department and reference is made in this regard to Ext.P16. It is submitted that since the recoveries which led to the issuance of Ext.P8 order are not proper, the entire demand in Ext.P8 is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner is atleast entitled to a further opportunity before the Officer, who issued Ext.P8 order.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader has taken me through the contents of Ext.P8 order. It is pointed out that even assuming for a moment that the contention of the petitioner is correct, Ext.P8 order shows that the proceedings have been concluded based on several incriminating material recovered from the premises of the petitioner which are not restricted to the alleged computer records. It is submitted with reference to the order that there is clear evidence to show that the petitioner had suppressed the sales turn over and had avoided the payment of tax which prompted the department to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act. It is submitted that the entire proceedings are based on facts collected by the department and there is no ground on which Ext.P8 order can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is for the petitioner to establish his case before the Appellate Authority who will be in a position to examine the facts with reference to the records.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contentions taken by the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. A reading of Ext.P8 order shows, that, several recoveries have led to the initiation of proceedings and the conclusion of proceedings against the petitioner through Ext.P8. It is true that some of these recoveries relate to certain computer records which have been relied on to finalise the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the fact that the proceedings (atleast in part) refer to details/data recovered from computer systems does not compel me to hold that Ext.P8 should be interfered with at this stage in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming that the case of the petitioner, that, such records were not shared with the petitioner is correct, it is for the petitioner to seek remedies before the Appellate Authority as the matter clearly involves an adjudication of the facts, which is not possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. However, in order to enable the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy, it is directed that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today.