Case Details: J.K. Jain Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Bureau of Investigation North Bengal (2026) 41 Centax 169 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Aniruddha Roy, J.
- S/Shri Sandip Choraria, Rajeev Parik & Ms Esha Acharya, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Subir Kumar Saha & Bikramaditya Ghosh, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, wherein the appeal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the relevant invoices in physical form. It was submitted that as per Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, the invoice could be carried in electronic form and there was no requirement to produce the same in physical form. The petitioner contended that the provision did not mandate the physical production of an invoice, and a distinction was made in the rule itself between an invoice and an e-way bill. The department submitted that the person-in-charge of the conveyance was required to carry the invoice in physical form for verification, and failure to do so justified rejection of the appeal. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that a plain reading of Rule 138A showed that documents, including an invoice, were required to be carried by the person-in-charge of the conveyance. It was observed that in a taxing statute, the provision had to be construed strictly, and the requirement of carrying an invoice would mean carrying it in physical form for verification. The High Court held that the absence of an invoice in physical form justified the action taken by the authority. However, considering the facts, it was held that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to produce the relevant invoices before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to revisit the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing and upon production of invoices in physical form.
