2019 (6) TMI 1235 - HC - GST

Refund of penalty - movement of the goods from Bengaluru to Mysore was without E-way bill - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the penalty determined by the respondents and the goods were released to the petitioner. If that being the position, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act for redressal of his grievance as the contentions raised by the petitioner revolves around the factual aspects of the case. There is no other option for this Court except to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007 - Jurisdiction of the High Court - Alternative remedy of appeal under the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the respondent under Section 129 of the Act, seeking a refund of the penalty imposed. The petitioner, a dealer of essential oils, faced penalties due to discrepancies in E-way bill details during transportation of goods. The petitioner argued that the interception of goods and penalty imposition were arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention to set aside the order and refund the penalty amount of ?1,71,360.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, contended that the petitioner should have exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act before approaching the High Court. After considering the arguments from both sides and perusing the material on record, the Court noted that the penalty was paid by the petitioner, and the goods were released. The Court emphasized that since the petitioner had the option to appeal under the Act, it was appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority for redressal of grievances. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal within two weeks from the date of receiving the order.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal process under the Act for a comprehensive review of the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and utilizing available legal avenues for dispute resolution, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the petitioner's contentions.