Ms-Gargo-Traders V Commercial Tax

1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao
WPA 1009 of 2022
M/s. Gargo Traders
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
(State Tax) & Ors.
Ms. Jagriti Mishra

Mr. Subham Gupta
Ms. Mrinmoyee Das
Mr. Reshab Kumar
.....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subir Kumar Saha, Ld. A.G.P
Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh
.....For the State.
Heard on : 07.06.2023
Judgment on : 12.06.2023
2
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the
order passed by Joint Commissioner, State Tax, West Bengal, Siliguri
Circle dated 13th April, 2022 wherein the appeal preferred by the
petitioner is rejected and the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority is withheld.
2. The petitioner being the registered taxable person (RTP) claimed credit
of input tax against supply made from a supplier. As per the ledger
account of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2018 to
31.03.2019, the total purchase credit was Rs. 13,04,586/-. The
petitioner has filed a tax invoice cum chalan reflecting a purchase of
Rs. 11,31,513.00 from Global Bitumen. The debit note issued in the
name of the transporter i.e. the International Transport Corporation
for an amount of Rs. 1,73,073.00/-. The petitioner has made payment
to Global Bitumen from the account of the petitioner through bank.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the
respondent authorities for not allowing the petitioner, who is the
purchaser of goods in question and refusing to grant the benefit of
Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase from supplier and also asking the
petitioner to pay penalty and interest under the relevant provisions of
GST Act.
4. The case of the respondents that on inquiry, they came to know that
the supplier from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the
goods in question are all fake and non-existing and the bank accounts
open by the supplier is on the basis of fake document and the claim of
3
the petitioner of Input Tax Credit are not supported by any relevant
document. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner
has not verified the genuineness and identity of the supplier whether
is a registered taxable person (RTP) before entering into any
transaction with the supplier.
5. It is the further case of the respondents that the registration of the
supplier in question has already been cancelled with retrospective
effect covering the transaction period of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit by enclosing tax
invoice cum challan dated 12th November, 2018, debit note dated 12th
November, 2018, e-Way Bill dated 12th November, 2018,
transportation bill dated 12th November, 2018 and statement of bank
account of HDFC Bank of the petitioner showing the transaction made
by the petitioner in favaour of the supplier.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the said documents
and submits that the authorities have not considered the said
documents and from the said documents, it is crystal clear that the
petitioner has purchased the goods from the supplier and had
transported the said goods and also transferred the amount through
bank in the account of the supplier.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon unreported judgment
passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in WPA 23512 of 2019
(M/s. LGW Industries Limited & Ors. –vs- Union of India & Ors.)
dated 13th December, 2021 and the Judgment reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 1412 (Balaji Exim –vs- Commissioner, CGST & Ors.)
4
and submitted that the allegation of fake credit availed by Global
Bitumen cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s refund
application unless it is established that the petitioner has not received
the goods or paid for them.
9. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the
transaction relied by the petitioner with Global Bitumen is of
November, 2018 but the authorities have cancelled the registration of
the supplier of the petitioner with effect from 13.10.2018 and the said
cancellation has been accepted by the supplier.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the
judgments relied by the petitioner is distinguishable from the present
case as in the present case, the cancellation of the supplier has been
given retrospective effect and the supplier has accepted the same and
thus the judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable in the
present case.
11. Considered the submissions made by the Counsels for the
respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgment
relied by the petitioner.
12. The main contention of the petitioner that the transactions in
question are genuine and valid and relying upon all the supporting
relevant documents required under law, the petitioner with due
diligence verified the genuineness and identity of the supplier and
name of the supplier as registered taxable person was available at the
Government Portal showing its registration as valid and existing at the
time of transaction.
5
13. Admittedly at the time of transaction, the name of the supplier
as registered taxable person was already available with the
Government record and the petitioner has paid the amount of
purchased articles as well as tax on the same through bank and not
in cash.
14. It is not the case of the respondents that there is a collusion
between the petitioner and supplier with regard to the transaction.
15. This Court finds that without proper verification, it cannot be
said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in
compliance of any obligation required under the statute before
entering into the transactions in question.
16. The respondent authorities only taking into consideration of the
cancellation of registration of the supplier with retrospective effect
have rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the
documents relied by the petitioner.
17. The unreported judgment passed in the case of M/s Law
Industries Limited & Ors. (supra) is squarely applicable in the
present case.
18. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The
respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner
afresh by taking into consideration of the documents which the
petitioner intends to rely in support of his claim.
19. The respondent no. 1 shall dispose of the claim of the petitioner
by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity

6
of hearing to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
20. WPA No. 1009 of 2022 is thus disposed of.
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of
the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied
for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite
formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)

Ms-Gargo-Traders V Commercial Tax

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ms-Gargo-Traders V Commercial Tax

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ms-Gargo-Traders V Commercial Tax

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

WPA 1009 of 2022

M/s. Gargo Traders

The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

(State Tax) & Ors.

Ms. Jagriti Mishra

Krishna Rao, J.:

order passed by Joint Commissioner, State Tax, West Bengal, Siliguri

petitioner is rejected and the order passed by the Adjudicating

account of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2018 to

31.03.2019, the total purchase credit was Rs. 13,04,586/-. The

petitioner has filed a tax invoice cum chalan reflecting a purchase of

name of the transporter i.e. the International Transport Corporation

for an amount of Rs. 1,73,073.00/-. The petitioner has made payment

to Global Bitumen from the account of the petitioner through bank.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the

respondent authorities for not allowing the petitioner, who is the

purchaser of goods in question and refusing to grant the benefit of

petitioner to pay penalty and interest under the relevant provisions of

document. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner

is a registered taxable person (RTP) before entering into any

transaction with the supplier.

5. It is the further case of the respondents that the registration of the

supplier in question has already been cancelled with retrospective

effect covering the transaction period of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit by enclosing tax

November, 2018, e-Way Bill dated 12th November, 2018,

transportation bill dated 12th November, 2018 and statement of bank

account of HDFC Bank of the petitioner showing the transaction made

by the petitioner in favaour of the supplier.

bank in the account of the supplier.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon unreported judgment

passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in WPA 23512 of 2019

and submitted that the allegation of fake credit availed by Global

Bitumen cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s refund

application unless it is established that the petitioner has not received

the goods or paid for them.

transaction relied by the petitioner with Global Bitumen is of

November, 2018 but the authorities have cancelled the registration of

cancellation has been accepted by the supplier.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the

judgments relied by the petitioner is distinguishable from the present

thus the judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable in the

11. Considered the submissions made by the Counsels for the

respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgment

relied by the petitioner.

12. The main contention of the petitioner that the transactions in

relevant documents required under law, the petitioner with due

diligence verified the genuineness and identity of the supplier and

name of the supplier as registered taxable person was available at the

Government Portal showing its registration as valid and existing at the

13. Admittedly at the time of transaction, the name of the supplier

as registered taxable person was already available with the

Government record and the petitioner has paid the amount of

14. It is not the case of the respondents that there is a collusion

between the petitioner and supplier with regard to the transaction.

15. This Court finds that without proper verification, it cannot be