Writ Petition not maintainable when proceedings dependent upon adequacy of evidence

Last updated: 19 January 2024

Court :
Madras High Court

Brief :
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Malar International v. Deputy State Tax Officer-I [WP No. 198 of 2024 dated January 5, 2024] dismissed the writ petition as the disputes pertaining to adequacy of evidence cannot be addressed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Citation :
WP No. 198 of 2024 dated January 5, 2024

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Malar International v. Deputy State Tax Officer-I [WP No. 198 of 2024 dated January 5, 2024] dismissed the writ petition as the disputes pertaining to adequacy of evidence cannot be addressed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Facts

Malar International ("the Petitioner") was issued a Show Cause Notice dated February 3, 2023, by the Revenue Department ("the Respondent") pertaining to the purchase made from M/s. Siba Auto Private Limited ("the Supplier"). The Petitioner filed a reply dated March 6, 2023, asserting that, the supply is genuine and submitted documents such as purchase invoice, bank statements, lorry receipts and e-way bills along with the reply. However, the claim of the Input Tax Credit ("ITC") was rejected by the Petitioner vide Order dated September 12, 2023 ("the Impugned Order") on the ground that, gate pass was not submitted and the Supplier could not be traced at the registered place of business.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

Issue

Whether Writ Petition is maintainable when the proceedings are dependent upon adequacy of evidence?

Held

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 198 of 2024held as under:

Noted that, the ITC was denied after going through the documents on record provided by the Petitioner pertaining to alleged purchase of goods from the Supplier.
Further Noted that, the crucial aspect of the adjudication in the present matter depends upon the adequacy of evidence pertaining to actual purchase and delivery of goods to the Petitioner.
Opined that, the aforementioned disputes cannot be addressed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Held that, the writ petition is dismissed.