2023 (1) TMI 1095 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactment - Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - HELD THAT - The petitioner claims to be a transporter who was transporting goods for a dealer from the Tiruppur District in Tamil Nadu to a recipient in Hyderabad Telangana. The consignment of Ready-Made Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant for an unknown consignor and consigneer whose name has been later given as Star Handlooms in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. About 58 bundles of Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant and that out of 58 bundles 33 did not accompany necessary documents including invoices. For the balance it can be inferred there was only lorry receipts. Under these circumstances the lorry bearing registration number T.N. 39-Ck-5569 was detained by State Tax Officer (Intelligence) Roving Squad Tiruppur on 4.3.2022 and that on the same day Form GST MOV-02 Order for Physical Verification/Inspection of the Conveyance Goods and Documents was issued to the driver in charge of the aforesaid vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle along with the consignments were detained. There is an indication that 33 bundles accompanied lorry receipts without invoices under section 68(2) and for the balance 25 there were neither any invoices nor any lorry receipts. In the reply dated 15.03.2022 of the appellant also there was no clear explanation as to whether the appellant was carrying the goods for the said Star Handlooms of Tiruppur District or it was being transported by the appellant for itself. The only response of the appellant in its reply dated 15.3.2022 was that only two of the bundles would be valued at Rs. 20, 000 each and that rest of the bundles the value would be between Rs.4, 500 to Rs.5000 and not Rs.20, 000 per bundle. Whether the value of the 33 out of 58 seized goods/bundles were valued between Rs. 4500 -5000 per bundle or R.20, 000/- cannot be determined in a writ proceedings based on the submission of the appellant. The owner i.e. either the consignor or consignee have also not come forward to claim the Bundles. Therefore the order passed by the respondent State Tax Officer cannot be interfered by this Court. It cannot be construed that the value of two of the bundles out of 58 bundles alone were Rs.20, 000 and that rest of them were only between Rs. 4500 -5000. There cannot be determination of the value n a writ proceeding. Whether the value was Rs.4500 - 5000 is something which the appellant will have to establish only before the appellate authority under section 107 of the respective GST enactments in an appellate proceedings. If the appellant wishes to pursue the appellate remedy the appellant will have to pay deposit 25% of the amount determined by the respondent State Tax Officer Intelligence. This Court is not really concerned with the disputed questions of fact. It is for the appellant to establish the same before the Appellate Authority and the amount that may be pre-deposited can be either appropriated or refunded back subject to the out come of the appeal in the proposed appeal against the aforesaid order. Writ petition dismissed.

Issues:
- Appeal against order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11546/2022
- Dismissal of Writ Petition by learned Single Judge
- Relief sought in the Writ Petition
- Detention of goods and penalty imposed
- Applicability of Section 129(1)(b) of GST Acts
- Appellate remedy under Section 107 of GST Enactments
- Pre-deposit requirement under Section 107
- Interpretation of facts and value of seized goods
- Direction to file appeal under TNGST Act, 2017

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.05.2022 in W.P.No.11546/2022, where the Writ Petition was dismissed, but the appellant was given liberty to seek remedy before the Appellate Authority. The relief sought in the Writ Petition was to quash the order dated 17.03.2022 under Section 129(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding a penalty of Rs.11,60,000 for transporting goods without proper documents.

2. The appellant, engaged in transportation, was found transporting goods without necessary documents, leading to the detention of the vehicle and the goods. The appellant admitted the mistake but disputed the valuation of the goods and the penalty imposed. The appellant argued that under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Acts, the penalty should be limited to fifty percent of the value of the goods if the owner does not come forward for payment, contrary to the hundred percent penalty imposed.

3. The appellant contended that the order directing them to file an appeal was against their rights under the GST Enactments. The respondent argued that the order was justified and that the appellant had an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Enactments. The respondent also cited a previous decision by the Court in support of their position.

4. The Court noted that the appellant was transporting goods without proper documentation, leading to the detention of the vehicle and goods. The Court found that the value of the seized goods could not be determined in a writ proceeding and should be established before the Appellate Authority. The Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy and pay a pre-deposit of 25% of the determined amount.

5. The Court dismissed the writ appeal, extending the time to file an appeal and directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within one month. The Court emphasized that the appellant needed to establish the disputed facts before the Appellate Authority and that the pre-deposited amount could be adjusted based on the appeal outcome. The judgment upheld the direction to file an appeal under the TNGST Act, 2017, and closed the case without costs.

← Previous Next →