2020 (6) TMI 384 - HC - GST

Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - seizure on the ground that the driver of the conveyance was not able to produce a valid E-way bill - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that there is a statutory appeal provided against the impugned order, the writ applicant should avail the alternative remedy and prefer an appropriate appeal if he deems fit. At this stage, it is clarified that if the statutory appeal under Section 107 is preferred by the writ applicant and if the appeal is not disposed of at the earliest or in near future, it is always open for the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for interim release of the conveyance pending the final adjudication of the statutory appeal. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order under Section 129 of CGST Act
2. Seizure of vehicle for not producing valid E-way bill
3. Availability of statutory appeal under Section 107 of Gujarat State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
4. Alternative remedy of preferring an appeal
5. Possibility of interim release of conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act

Analysis:
The writ applicant, engaged in the transport business, sought relief to quash an order specifying tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The vehicle was seized during transit due to the driver's inability to produce a valid E-way bill. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the impugned order dated 07.06.2020. The applicant, dissatisfied with this order, approached the High Court via the writ application.

During the hearing, the counsel for the applicant and the Government Pleader for the respondent presented their arguments. The Court pointed out the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Gujarat State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to the applicant. It was suggested that the applicant should consider availing this alternative remedy by filing an appropriate appeal if deemed necessary. The Court clarified that if the statutory appeal is not disposed of promptly, the applicant could apply for interim release of the conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ application, emphasizing that the applicant should pursue the statutory appeal route and, if needed, apply for interim release of the conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act. Any such application made under Section 67(6) would be decided promptly in accordance with the law. This concluded the judgment, providing guidance on the available legal recourse for the writ applicant in the given matter.