Case Name: ENKEBEE Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: FMA/431/2024
Connected IA: CAN/1/2024
Relevant Sections: Sections 73, 74, CGST Act; Rule 142 of CGST Rules
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit Mismatch & Invoice Value Discrepancy
Date of Judgement: 08.04.2025
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam & Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)
Facts of the Case
[Para 1–5]
-
The appellant challenged the adjudication order dated 27.07.2023 under a writ petition (WPA 25121 of 2023), which was dismissed by the Single Bench citing the availability of alternate appellate remedy.
-
The intra-court appeal was filed against the said dismissal order.
-
The appellant raised issues regarding four discrepancies (Serial Nos. 6–9) in the adjudication order related to GSTR-3B/GSTR-9 mismatches and invoice value differences.
Question(s) in Consideration
[Para 6–11]
-
Whether the discrepancies noted in Serial Nos. 6–9 of the adjudication order were justifiably established by the department.
-
Whether these discrepancies could be re-verified from departmental records, specifically via the GST portal (GSTR-9, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B) and invoice certifications.
Observation of Court
[Para 6–11]
-
The Court noted that Serial Nos. 6 and 7 pertained to IGST credit utilization reflected in GSTR-9 but not in GSTR-3B.
-
Serial Nos. 8 and 9 involved mismatch in taxable invoice value between supplier and recipient declarations.
-
The Court opined that all four issues can be verified from departmental portals and available records without further judicial involvement.
Judgement of the Court
[Para 12]
-
The appeal was partly allowed.
-
Findings related to Serial Nos. 6–9 in the adjudication order dated 27.07.2023 were set aside.
-
The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision limited to the said four items.
-
The authority was directed to grant a personal hearing, consider all documents, and decide afresh strictly in accordance with law.
Between Fine Lines
-
The Court directed re-verification of GST discrepancies using available portal data.
-
Only four disputed entries were found worth remand; the rest of the order was untouched.
-
Judicial intervention was limited, respecting departmental verification capabilities.
-
Procedural fairness (personal hearing) was ensured for the assessee.
-
The case confirms that courts may intervene when factual disputes are verifiable but overlooked.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| No cases cited explicitly in the judgment. | – | – | – |
