TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mere slips but are memo of sales. Further ground taken is that the entire proceedings had been initiated at the behest of the Additional Commissioner, and it was he who had authorized the Superintendent of Taxes to conduct inspection, which culminated into the impugned demand and subsequent appeal heard by him. 3. Mr. R.B. Phookan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the raid and seizure of various documents including rough estimates, notepads, estimate books and cash memos, show cause notices were issued by the respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Taxes) dated 18.06.2020 and 29.06.2020, alleging tax evasion. Replies and justifications he submits, were provided by the petitioner, but the respondent No. 4 on 24.08.2020, issued an intimation of liability for payment of Rs. 34,26,901.40p as tax plus interest and penalties, based on the seized records and thereafter a final order of demand amounting to Rs. 59,18,980/- was issued on 08.02.2021. The learned Senior counsel submits that though an appeal was filed under Section 107 of the MGST Act, 2017 against the demand, the respondent No. 3, as the Appellate authority by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore vitiated the proceedings, in spite of the fact that a faceless hearing for fair adjudication had been requested by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the demand total of Rs. 47,05,688/- later increased to over Rs. 59,18,980/- is arbitrary and perverse, as the said amounts had been demanded without specifying the exact turnover or inspection of actual stocks. 7. Learned Senior counsel has also contended that when a controversy involves a purely legal question rather than disputed question of facts, the High Court could decide the matter even when there is the availability of alternate remedy. In this context, reliance has been placed on the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authorities & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95. Reliance has also been placed on the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (Jain Hawala case) reported in (1998) 3 SCC 410 and Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Shillong vs. M/s NEEPCO (ITA No. 2 of 2024) with regard to entries made in loose sheets that a hypothetical income recorded in the books of account, should not be taxed simply because an entry exists. He lastly argued that at the time of filing of the writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner has failed to adhere to Section 36 of the MGST Act and Rules, which mandates that every registered person must keep and maintain books of accounts for at least 72 months (6 years) from the due date of the annual return for that year, and therefore the petitioner's inability to produce coherent historical records, is also a violation of the established statutory requirements. It has also been contended that though the petitioner claims that the tax invoices were maintained electronically, there were not readily available when requested by the officials and the request made for extension, was but a stalling tactic and a violation Rule 48 of the MGST Acts and Rules, 2017, which govern the maintenance of electronic records. 10. The learned GA has also alluded to the other contentions raised by the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner's formal reply failed to address the specific questions raised, such as the discrepancies in the seized memos and instead, submitted materials which had no connection to the seized documents. Further it is submitted there is no mention in the seized cash memos with regard to any GST rates or tax components which is a direct violation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at Para-7, a portion of which is extracted hereinbelow held as follows:- "7. ..........The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Article. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Art. 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which, without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision o....