2023 (5) TMI 884 - HC - GST

Seeking provisional release of vehicle invoking Section 129(1) of the GST Act - alternative remedy of statutory appeal - order of detention under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, issued, on the ground of mismatch of delivery address - HELD THAT - This Court has carefully gone into both the orders referred to by the learned counsels, one in M/s. Kramski Stamping and Molding Indis Private Ltd. 2023 (2) TMI 587 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the other in M/s. DCM Shriram Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sindha Mohammed Fayaz 2023 (1) TMI 788 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In almost similar set of facts, this Court directed the writ petitioner therein, to avail all the alternate remedies available under Section 107 of the GST Act. This Court also took a note of the procedure and remedy available to the writ petitioner, to seek provisional relief of vehicle invoking Section 129(1) of the GST Act. The facts in M/s. Kramski Stamping and Molding Indis Private Ltd. 2023 (2) TMI 587 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In fact, the second respondent has adverted to all the objections raised by the writ petitioner and answered the same as these are the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the alternate remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner is given liberty to file a statutory appeal, within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said statutory appeal within 10 days, the Statutory Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law and shall not put a limitation in filing the appeal against the Writ Petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves challenging impugned proceedings in ADJ No.04/2023-24/Adjudication-2 and Form GST MOV-09- Order of Demand of Tax and Penalty in GST MOV Order No.04/2023-24/Adjudication-2, seeking to quash them as illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio.

Facts:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, entered into a transaction for supplying goods to a customer through a 'Bill to' – 'Ship to' arrangement. Despite providing all necessary details in tax invoices and e-way bills, the goods vehicle was intercepted by the first respondent on the grounds of a mismatch in the delivery address. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs.3,51,000/- was levied, leading to the present challenge through a Writ Petition.

Arguments:
The petitioner's counsel cited a previous judgment with similar facts where the impugned order was quashed, emphasizing the need for relief in the current case. In response, the Government Advocate referred to another court order directing the petitioner to explore alternate remedies under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Judgment:
The Court noted the similarity between the previous cases and the present one, highlighting that disputed factual questions cannot be addressed in a Writ Petition under Article 226 when alternate remedies are available under the law. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The petitioner can file a statutory appeal within ten days, with no limitation on the appeal against the Writ Petition.
- The petitioner can seek provisional release of the detained goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the GST Act.
- The Appropriate Authority must decide on the interim application promptly and the Statutory Appellate Authority should consider releasing the goods and vehicle within four weeks.
- Any application under Section 129(6) of the GST Act will be expedited without delay. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.