2026 (4) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent: Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Dijitesh Mukherjee. ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge an order dated May 3, 2024, passed by the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Kolkata South Commissionerate, whereby the Commissioner confirmed the allegation of irregular availment of credit by the petitioners and imposed consequential penalties. 2. Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior advocat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., submits that the seized documents pertain to the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, whereas the impugned assessment relates to the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17. It is further submitted that the petitioners were granted an adequate opportunity of hearing and that, in the facts of the case, the authority was justified in invoking Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 so as to avail the exten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... India, particularly in the presence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. 5. This Court is further of the view that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order dated May 3, 2024 within the limited ambit of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of appeal, wherein they may contest the matter on m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioners. The Tribunal shall be at liberty to adjudicate upon such issues in accordance with law. 9. After the order was dictated, it was submitted by Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, that the demand in respect of the Cen VAT credit has already been settled between the parties and that a discharge certificate has been issued by the competent authority. The....