2019 (11) TMI 1108 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - alternative remedy of appeal - Territorial Jurisdiction - appealable order or not - case of petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of the goods detained by the respondent No.2 has made the payment equal to 100% of the tax payable on such goods. Hence, the respondent No.2/Authority ought to have passed the order under section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act and KGST Act - Circular No.76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018. HELD THAT - The invoice accompanying the goods in the present case indicates the consignor as the petitioner. In terms of the investigation report, the goods are loaded in the State of Karnataka near Aldur, Chikkmagalur District and the conveyance in question has not entered into the State of Tamil Nadu. These factual aspects which are disputed and challenged by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. Though an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the order impugned is not appealable under the provisions of the Act, the same requires to be negated for the reason that section 107 of the Act explicitly makes it clear that, any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. Hence, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, this court finds it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to avail the alternative remedy of appeal - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of demand of tax and penalty under CGST Act, KGST Act, and IGST Act, detention order under CGST Act, demand notices for other reliefs.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in agriculture and trade of areca nuts, consigned goods to a recipient in New Delhi. The consignment was intercepted in Karnataka, leading to a detention order under CGST Act. The petitioner claims compliance with tax laws and challenges the detention order.

The petitioner argues that as the owner of the detained goods, they paid 100% of the tax due, seeking relief under section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act. They rely on Circular No.76/50/2018-GST, stating that if the invoice accompanies the goods, the consignor should be deemed the owner. Previous court judgments are cited to support this argument.

The Revenue contends that the order is appealable, emphasizing that the goods were loaded in Karnataka, not Tamil Nadu. They argue that the tax invoice did not comply with CGST/KGST Act provisions, pointing to sections 2(66) and 31.

The court acknowledges the dispute over the ownership of goods and the loading location but notes that such factual issues are for the Appellate Authority to decide. The court cannot adjudicate on disputed facts when statutory mechanisms for redressal exist.

Regarding appealability, the court clarifies that the order is appealable under section 107 of the Act. The case does not fall under non-appealable matters listed in section 121. The court directs the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within two weeks, ensuring an expedited decision within four weeks.

In conclusion, the court disposes of the writ petition, urging the petitioner to pursue the appeal process for a comprehensive resolution of the dispute.