2020 (1) TMI 1164 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith the truck - allegation that the petitioner was not able to show the relevant papers - sub-section (6) of Section 67 read with Section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The order impugned is indeed appellable, which gives rights to the petitioner to get his goods and the vehicle released, provided the petitioner gives a security in the form of bank guarantee to the concerned Department. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, no interference is being called for in the matter - Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on ground of alternative remedy.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of tax and penalty on petitioner for transporting building material without relevant papers.
2. Interpretation of Section 67(6) and Section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Applicability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act.
4. Dismissal of the writ petition due to the existence of an alternative remedy.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's truck was seized for transporting building material without proper documentation, leading to the imposition of a substantial tax and penalty amounting to ?2,52,810. The Commercial Tax Department justified the action based on the lack of relevant papers.

2. The petitioner's counsel relied on Section 67(6) and Section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 67(6) allows for the provisional release of seized goods upon execution of a bond or payment of applicable tax, interest, and penalty. Section 129 outlines the consequences of transporting goods in contravention of the Act, providing options for release upon payment of tax and penalty or furnishing security.

3. The State Counsel argued that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Act before the Commissioner. The court acknowledged the availability of an appellate remedy, emphasizing the petitioner's right to seek release of goods and the vehicle by providing a bank guarantee as security.

4. Despite the petitioner's plea for release based on furnishing security, the court dismissed the writ petition citing the existence of an alternative remedy through the appellate process under Section 107. The decision was made on the grounds of not interfering when an alternative legal recourse is available to address the issue effectively.