2019 (5) TMI 1649 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - power of the U.P. State Officers/Authorities under the GST regime in seizing the consignment of goods which were going from Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) to Bihar - validity of Detention Order and Penalty notice - HELD 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. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner will file an appeal within period of one week from today - In case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of one week, the authority concerned shall decide the appeal within a period of three weeks thereafter. Seizure of the goods/vehicle of the petitioner - HELD THAT - 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 State Officers under GST regime, authority of respondent in penalty proceedings, detention order challenge, appealability of penalty order, availability of alternative remedy, release of seized goods/vehicle.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of U.P. State Officers under the GST regime for seizing goods en route from Kanpur to Bihar and questioned the penalty proceedings conducted by respondent No.3. The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, contended that all necessary documents were in place for the consignment, yet goods were detained on 9.5.2019. The petitioner challenged the detention order, penalty notice, and MOV-9 under Rule 129(3) of the Rules, 2017.

The Standing Counsel argued that the penalty order was appealable under Section 107 of the Rules, 2017, citing the judgment of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal. The court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to appeal the penalty order. The court emphasized that statutory forums should be used for grievance redressal when available, and entertained writ petitions only when no effective alternative remedy existed.

The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within one week and instructed the authority to decide on the appeal within three weeks. Regarding the seized goods/vehicle, the petitioner referred to Rule 140 of the Rules, 2017, which allowed release upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Standing Counsel did not dispute this provision. The court directed the petitioner to apply for release, with the competent authority expected to release the goods/vehicle upon satisfaction with the bank guarantee within one week of the application.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies for challenging the penalty order and providing guidance on the release of the seized goods/vehicle in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules, 2017.