2019 (7) TMI 1329 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy - Jurisdiction - Validity of Detention Order and Penalty Order - seizure of consignment - Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In the proceedings based on the impugned notice, final order has been passed under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and against the said order, the petitioners have got a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. So, in view of the same, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the fact that the final order has been passed against which petitioners have got a statutory remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order and penalty notice under UPGST Act based on jurisdiction of Commissioner of State Tax, U.P. seizing consignment of goods in transit from Haryana to Lucknow.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the detention order and penalty notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Lucknow, on the grounds of jurisdiction under the UPGST Act. The consignment of goods, sold by the petitioner to a buyer, was being transported from Haryana to Lucknow with all necessary documents, including tax invoice and E-Way Bill. The petitioners argued that the seizure was unjustified as there was no discrepancy in the accompanying documents and the E-Way Bill was valid when the consignment was intercepted, indicating no intention to evade tax payment.

The petitioners contended that under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, goods can only be seized if transported in contravention of the law. They emphasized that the term 'contravention' implies a violation of legal provisions, which was not the case as the consignment was still in transit, not yet delivered to the buyer, and payment had not been received by the seller. Citing legal precedents, including the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court judgments, the petitioners argued that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches and that the seizure was based on suspicions rather than concrete evidence.

The Standing Counsel argued that a final order had been passed under the CGST Act, providing the petitioners with a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the detention order and penalty notice was deemed not maintainable. The court acknowledged the final order and the availability of statutory appeal, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The court clarified that its decision did not address the merits of the case, allowing the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy without hindrance.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the detention order and penalty notice under the UPGST Act, citing the availability of a statutory remedy through appeal under the CGST Act. The court emphasized that its decision did not delve into the substantive issues of the case, leaving the petitioners free to pursue their appeal.