2021 (8) TMI 1180 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - detention of conveyance and goods - section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Though the learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the order is passed by the respondent on presumptions and surmises, and merely relying on the statement of the driver, the said submission cannot be accepted. It transpires from the documents on record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by issuing a showcause notice, but the same was not responded to by the petitioner. Now, since a final order has been passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, the proper course would be to file an Appeal as provided for under the Statute. As there is an alternative equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of detention of conveyance and goods under Section 129 of CGST Act.
2. Legality of notice of confiscation under Section 130 of CGST Act.
3. Request for writ of mandamus or appropriate order declaring actions as illegal.
4. Quashing of order of confiscation and demand of tax, fine, and penalty.

The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the detention of conveyance and goods under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the notice of confiscation under Section 130 of the same Act. The petitioner requested a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order declaring the actions as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law. A draft amendment was granted, adding a prayer to quash the order of confiscation and demand of tax, fine, and penalty issued under Section 130. The respondent authority had passed an order determining taxes, penalty, and confiscation based on the CGST Act. The petitioner's advocate argued that the order was based on presumptions and surmises, solely relying on the driver's statement. However, it was noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to respond via a show cause notice, which was not utilized. The Court found that since an order had been issued under Section 130, the proper recourse for the petitioner would be to file an appeal as provided by the statute, deeming it an equally efficacious remedy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that it did not delve into the case's merits.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the petition challenging the detention of conveyance and goods under Section 129 and the notice of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal and declined to entertain the petition on those grounds. The judgment highlights the importance of utilizing statutory remedies when available and refraining from seeking extraordinary remedies like writs when alternative avenues exist.