Writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence for valuation dispute when alternative remedy exists – Calcutta High Court {Vinod Maurya V/s Union of India (2025) 32 Centax 110 (Cal.)}
Issue:
Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can re-appreciate factual evidence and adjudicate valuation disputes under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, especially when an alternative statutory remedy exists.
Facts:
- Goods were detained by the respondent authorities due to an excess quantity being found beyond what was declared in the tax invoice, e-way bill, and consignment note.
- The documents did not specify approximate weight per bag, and the petitioner failed to submit any supplementary documents (e.g., original purchase invoice, weighment certificate, or proof of payment) to justify the discrepancy.
- The driver’s statement further raised doubt he was unaware of the consignor/consignee, and the goods were loaded by a transporter different from the one mentioned in the documents.
- The bank statements of the petitioner did not show any payment from the consignee.
Held:
- The Calcutta High Court held that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to examine valuation disputes involving factual determinations.
- Since the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under the statutory appellate mechanism, the Court declined to interfere.
- The writ petition was dismissed, reiterating that judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings.
