Kerala High Court
K. Shine Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner on 29 February, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 302 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/2/2024 IN WP(C) NO.5750 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K. SHINE KUMAR,
AGED 51 YEARS
PUNARTHAM, THIRUVANKULAM,TRIPUNITHURA - 682302.
(DIRECTOR OF SIMTEL TRADING CORPORATION (P)
LTD.TRIVENI COURT, B 717, OPP: RELIANCE
FRESH,KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020).
BY ADVS.
K.N.SREEKUMARAN
N.SANTHOSHKUMAR
P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT-1:
1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TAX PAYER SERVICE DIVISION,STATE GOODS & SERVICE
TAX DEPARTMENT,MINI CIVIL
STATION,TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE,ERNAKULAM DIVISION,
KATHRIKKADAVU,KOCHI, PIN - 682017
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE,ERNAKULAM DIVISION,
KATHRIKKADAVU,KOCHI, PIN - 682017
WA No.302/2024
-:2:-
4 COMMISSIONER,
STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,TAX TOWER,
KILLPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O. ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695002
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN,SC-P.R.SREEJITH.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.302/2024
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5750/2024 dated 14 th
February, 2024.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition impugning Ext.P11
assessment order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 73
of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, mainly on the ground that it violates
the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to the
statutory appellate remedy. It is challenging the said judgment;
the appellant is before us.
3. We have heard Sri.K.N.Sreekumaran, the learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and
Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 4.
A reading of Ext.P11 order would show that the 1 st
respondent gave sufficient opportunity to the appellant for
hearing. It would show that the appellant gave a reply to the
show cause notice, and his representative also participated in the
personal hearing held on 20/12/2023. Thus, there is absolutely no
question of violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged
by the appellant. The appellant alleges that the denial of
transitional credit to him, based on mere technicalities, is illegal.
The said question of fact cannot be adjudicated under the
exercise of jurisdiction vested with this court under Art.226 of the
Constitution of India. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge,
the remedy open to the appellant is to prefer a statutory appeal
under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act. We see no merit in the
appeal, and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
