2022 (2) TMI 400 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - excess quantity of goods in the vehicle than the quantity declared in the 4 e-way bills - HELD THAT - The 2nd respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the quantity of the load that was being carried did not tally with the quantity mentioned in the e-way bills. Though petitioner disputes the said conclusion, correctness or otherwise of the said conclusion falls within the realm of disputed facts. It is trite law that this Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enter into issues that falls within the realm of disputed facts. Further, petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 and hence it will not be subjected to any prejudice also. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods under Section 129 of CGST/SGST Acts due to alleged excess quantity.
2. Rejection of objections by State Tax Officer and issuance of order under Section 129(3) in Form GST MOV 09.
3. Dispute regarding the quantity of goods transported compared to the e-way bills.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving disputed facts.
5. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a dealer in arecanut, transported dry arecanuts purchased from unregistered persons with e-way bills. The goods were intercepted, and the State Tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 129, alleging excess quantity based on Ext.P7.

2. Despite the petitioner's objection that the goods' quantity matched the e-way bills, the State Tax Officer rejected the objection and issued an order under Section 129(3) in Form GST MOV 09, citing excess quantity compared to the e-way bills.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that actual measurement would show no incongruity between the goods transported and the e-way bills. However, the 2nd respondent concluded otherwise, stating that the quantity did not match the e-way bills. The High Court refrained from delving into disputed facts under Article 226 jurisdiction.

4. The Court emphasized that it cannot adjudicate on disputed factual issues falling outside its purview, directing the petitioner to seek recourse under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017. The dismissal of the writ petition did not prejudice the petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, maintaining the petitioner's liberty to utilize statutory remedies available under the law. The judgment highlighted the limitations of the Court's jurisdiction in matters involving disputed facts and the importance of availing alternative legal remedies provided by the statute.