Form No. J.(2)

Item No.2

Pallab/KS AR(Ct.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

HEARD ON: 07.08.2025

DELIVERED ON: 07.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

M.A.T. 1088 of 2025

With

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025

Sandip Kumar Pandey & Anr.

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) Durgapur Zone & Ors.

Appearance:-

Mr. Pranit Bag

Mrs. Rita Mukherjee Mr. Ghanashyam Jha

Mr. Rowsan Kr. Jha

……….For the Appellants

Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Ld. G.P.

Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty

Mr. Saptak Sanyal

………..For the State

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

1. This intra-Court appeal by the appellants/writ petitioners is directed

against the order dated 7th May, 2025 in W.P.A. 9544 of 2025. The appellants had filed the writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 3rd October, 2024 by which

penalty has been imposed on the appellants/writ petitioners under Section

129 (1) (b) of the Act.

2. The learned Single Bench declined to interfere with the order and rendered certain findings on the merits of the matter but, however, since there was an appellate remedy provided under the Act, relegated the appellants/petitioners to avail such remedy. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court by way of this intra-Court appeal.

3. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The following facts are not in dispute. The appellant No.1 had purchased readymade garments from M/s. Ghosh Enterprises for which a tax invoice dated 30th July, 2024 was raised by the vendor and the goods were to be shipped to New Delhi and the writ petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of Shyam Enterprises. The description of the goods have been mentioned in the tax invoice alongwith a HSN/SAC Code, quantity, number of pieces, the price per piece and the total amount payable including 5% IGST and the Grand Total being Rs.30,25,260/-.

5. The vehicle, which was carrying the goods bearing registration No.HR 38AB

7042 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner of W.B.G.S.T. on 21st July, 2024 at 10.00 hours at Kalla More, NH – 2. The reasons set out in Form GST MOV – 02 is with a view to verify the genuineness of the goods in transit, its quantity etc. and/or tendered documents, physical verification of the goods were carried out and the report was generated in Form GST MOV-04 dated 23rd July, 2024 and there appears to have been no discrepancy in the description of the goods, as found in the tax invoice. Show-cause notice was issued in Form GST DRC – 01 dated 26th July, 2024 alleging that a spot verification was done by the State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation at the declared place of business of M/s. Ghosh Enterprises and it appears that Mr. Siddhartha Ghosh, the proprietor of M/s. Ghosh Enterprises had stated that he does not run any business under any GSTIN number and the registration certificate has not been obtained by him and the registration certificate has been fraudulently obtained by misusing his identity proof. Based on these allegations, which remained uncorroborated, the authority viz. the Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the tax invoice furnished by the appellants/writ petitioners is fake as well as the way bill generated using the details in the tax invoice cannot be considered to be proper supporting document and hence, stands rejected and the case is liable to be disposed of in accordance with Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. Copy of the detailed notice was also appended to the said form. The appellants/writ petitioners appears to have not filed their reply to the show-cause notice but, however, when hearing notice dated 25th September, 2024 was issued, they f