2019 (7) TMI 944 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy - whether the relegation made by the learned single Judge to avail the alternative remedy, was justified or not? - requirement of e-way bill for movement of new vehicle - Release of seized vehicle alongwith the goods - Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Contention of the appellant is that the appellate authority may not be able to look into the grounds raised, being a question of law to be decided - We cannot accept such a contention because the appellate authority can very well decide as to whether there existed any statutory obligation on the part of the appellant in generating the e-way bill, while transporting the goods in question. The liberty reserved by the learned single Judge for availing the statutory remedy, is not in any way illegal, erroneous or improper. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against Ext.P6 order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rejection of writ petition - Interpretation of Rule 138 regarding generation of e-way bill - Availability of alternative remedy before appellate authority.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The detention of goods was based on the alleged failure to generate an e-way bill as required by Rule 138. The appellant argued that the e-way bill was not necessary for the transport in question under sub-rule (14)(b) of Rule 138 as the goods were not transported by motorized conveyance. However, the 2nd respondent found that the e-way bill was mandatory as the goods were a new vehicle (Autorickshaw) transported from the appellant's principal place of business to its branch as a "Branch Transfer." The appellant could have used the temporary registration number of the vehicle to generate the e-way bill.

The appellant contended that the specific question raised was not addressed by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order. The appellant also highlighted an observation by a learned single Judge that the ground for detention was prima facie unsustainable. However, the Court held that such observations do not bind the respondents in deciding the issue. The main issue to be determined was whether the appellant was justified in being directed to avail the alternative remedy before the appellate authority. The appellant argued that the appellate authority might not be able to decide the legal question involved. The Court disagreed, stating that the appellate authority could indeed determine if there was a statutory obligation to generate the e-way bill for the goods in question.

Ultimately, the Court found that the reservation made by the learned single Judge for availing the statutory remedy was not illegal, erroneous, or improper. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision to reject the writ petition and directing the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy before the appellate authority.