9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 92 - HC - GSTMaintainability of writ application - application was declined to be entertained only on the ground that the impugned order passed by the authority concerned in Form GST MOV 11 is an appealable order - HELD THAT - The writ applicant has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The liberty is reserved for the writ applicant to file an appropriate appeal against the impugned order passed in Form GST MOV 11. If the goods and conveyance are still under detention, then it shall be open for the writ applicant to file an application under Sub-section (6) of Section 67 of the Act before the appellate authority for the provisional release of the goods and conveyance. If any such application is filed, the appellate authority shall look into the same at the earliest and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. This writ application stands disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of order passed by State Tax Officer in Form GST MOV-11, availability of statutory remedy under Section 107 of GST Act, provision for filing an appeal, provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67 of the Act, perishable nature of goods, timeline for filing appeal and application for provisional release. Analysis: The High Court, comprising Honourable Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Honourable Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore, heard arguments from Mr. Hardik Modh for the petitioner and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, appearing for the respondents. The writ applicant sought to challenge the legality and validity of an order issued by the State Tax Officer in Form GST MOV-11. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ application on this ground, emphasizing that the petitioner has a statutory remedy available through the appellate process. The Court granted the liberty for the writ applicant to file an appropriate appeal against the impugned order and also provided guidance on the provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67 of the Act in case they are still under detention. Mr. Modh, representing the petitioner, highlighted the perishable nature of the goods, specifically Arecanut, and informed the Court that the client would file an appeal within eight days and simultaneously submit an application for the provisional release of the goods under Section 67(6) of the Act. The Court directed the appellate authority to promptly consider any such application for provisional release and issue an order within one week from the filing of the application. Subsequently, the Court disposed of the writ application, indicating that the petitioner should follow the prescribed procedure for appeal and application for provisional release within the specified timelines. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the availability of statutory remedies, the appeal process under the GST Act, and the provision for provisional release of goods in cases of detention, considering the perishable nature of the goods involved. The Court's decision underscored the importance of following the legal procedures and timelines for seeking redressal in matters concerning tax orders and detention of goods under the GST regime.
|
