Writ cannot be entertained when alternate remedy is available

[CA Bimal Jain]

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of THIRUCHY ROYAL STEELS, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. JAHIR HUSSAIN MOHAMED RIYAZ VERSUS THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER - 2023 (5) TMI 884 - MADRAS HIGH COURT dismissed the writ and directed the assessee to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose the case on emergent basis.

Facts:

M/s Thiruchy Royal Steels (“the Petitioner”) is a registered dealer who entered into a transaction with a consignor of goods for supply of goods to the location as provided by the customer. The address and GSTIN details are clearly mentioned in all tax invoices and the transaction was arranged as a 'Bill to' - 'Ship to'. The Revenue Department intercepted the vehicle conducted physical verification in Salem on April 26, 2023 and no mismatch with regard to the quantity of the goods carried was found. The Revenue Department issued an order of detention under section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act”) on the ground of mismatch of delivery address. The Revenue department issued notice under section 129(3) of the CGST Act and levied penalty of INR 3,51,000/-. Against which the Petitioner filed a detailed objection on May 02, 2023. After considering the said objection, the Revenue Department issued an Order ADJ No.04/2023-24/Adjudication-2 dated May 08, 2023 ("the Impugned Order”). Aggrieved by the Impugned Order the Petitioner filed writ before the High Court.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner can file writ before the High Court even before filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in THIRUCHY ROYAL STEELS, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. JAHIR HUSSAIN MOHAMED RIYAZ VERSUS THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER - 2023 (5) TMI 884 - MADRAS HIGH COURTheld as under:

• Observed that, there are disputes in facts, which cannot be entertained by the High court in writ especially when the alternate remedy is available.
• Stated that, the Petitioner may move an application under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, to seek for provisional release of the goods and the vehicle, which have been detained.
• Directed the Petition to file statutory appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits and pass an order within a week.
• Opined the Appellate Authority to consider releasing of goods and vehicle on putting the Petitioner on terms, as the Petitioner has already expressed his willingness to furnish even a bank guarantee for the entire penalty amount.
• Ordered the Appellate Authority to dispose the case on emergent basis by passing an order in the application made by the petitioner under Section 129(6) of the CGST Act.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])