2019 (5) TMI 1873 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - appeallable order under - efficacious remedy to appeal - Section 107 of the Rule 2017 or not - HELD THAT - It is clear that the petitioner has challenged the penalty order against which he has an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Act of filing an appeal. The petitioner can raise all the plea as has been pleaded before us in the present writ petition before the competent authority in appeal who shall consider the same and pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance to law after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to move appropriate application before the competent authority for release of goods/vehicle. If such an application is moved by the petitioner we hope and trust that the competent authority shall release the goods/vehicle on furnishing the bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of moving the application by the petitioner for release of goods/vehicle. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction of U.P. State Officers under GST regime for seizing goods in transit and adjudicating penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of U.P. State Officers/Authorities under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime for seizing goods in transit from Kanpur to Bihar and for adjudicating penalty proceedings. The petitioner, a registered dealer under GST, sold goods to registered buyers in Bihar with all requisite documents like tax invoice, e-way bills, and builties. Despite complying with all requirements, the goods were detained on 9.5.2019, and the respondents issued a notice under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that the penalty provisions were invoked illegally and arbitrarily, leading to the seizure of goods.

The Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection, citing that the penalty order was appealable under Section 107 of the Rules, 2017. Referring to a judgment, it was emphasized that when an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to appeal the penalty order, and therefore, the writ petition challenging the penalty order was not maintainable.

The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within a week and instructed the authority to decide on the appeal within three weeks. Regarding the seizure of goods/vehicle, the petitioner was advised to follow Rule 140 of the Rules, 2017, which allows for the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Standing Counsel did not dispute this provision. The petitioner was directed to submit an application for the release of goods/vehicle, and the competent authority was expected to release them upon satisfaction with the bank guarantee within a week of the application.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the penalty order was disposed of, with the Court emphasizing the availability of an appeal as the appropriate remedy and providing guidance on the release of seized goods/vehicle in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules, 2017.