Transporter’s writ petition dismissed as statutory appeal remedy available under GST Act.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

M/s. Rajhans Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Of U.P. Through Finance Secretary, Finance Ministry & Ors. (High Court of Allahabad)

Misc. Bench No. 1545 of 2020

Date: 21st January 2020

Key Takeaways:

- The court upheld the principle of availing statutory remedies before approaching the court through a writ petition.

- It highlighted the availability of an appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority.

- The court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order through the statutory appeal process.

Issue:

Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the order of detention and penalty, or direct the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy available under the GST Act.

Facts:

The petitioner, a transporter, had their vehicle detained by the revenue authorities during checking on 18.11.2019. Without hearing the petitioner, an order was passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, imposing a penalty of Rs. 37,42,935/- towards tax and penalty on the goods loaded in the vehicle. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order, claiming to be a transporter carrying goods for transportation.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Being a transporter, the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that they were merely transporting goods loaded by the respondent.

Respondent’s Argument:

The learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that against the impugned order, an appeal is provided before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal instead of directly filing a writ petition.

Key Legal Precedents:

The court did not cite any specific legal precedents in this case. However, it relied on the statutory provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides for an appeal mechanism before the Appellate Authority against orders passed under the Act.

Judgment:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount as per the order dated 22.11.2019 and file a copy of the receipt. If an application for interim custody of the vehicle is made along with the appeal, the court ordered the Appellate Authority to decide the same expeditiously within one week by passing a detailed and reasoned order, in accordance with the law.

FAQs:

Q1: What was the court’s primary reason for dismissing the writ petition?

A1: The court dismissed the writ petition because a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority.

Q2: Can the petitioner directly approach the High Court after the Appellate Authority’s decision?

A2: The judgment does not provide specific guidance on this. Generally, the petitioner may have the option to approach the High Court again if dissatisfied with the Appellate Authority’s decision, subject to applicable laws and procedures.

Q3: What was the court’s direction regarding the interim custody of the vehicle?

A3: The court directed that if the petitioner makes an application for interim custody of the vehicle along with the appeal, the Appellate Authority should decide the same expeditiously within one week by passing a detailed and reasoned order, in accordance with the law.

Q4: What legal principle did the court uphold in this case?

A4: The court upheld the principle of availing statutory remedies before approaching the court through a writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an appeal mechanism under the GST Act.

1. Heard Shri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner, who is a transporter, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.11.2019- Annexure no.3 to the petition, on the ground that he is a transporter and on 15.11.2019, goods of the respondent no.4 was loaded in his truck no.U.P. 21 CN 5694 for it's transportation from Delhi to Arhiya, Bihar.

3. During checking on 18.11.2019, the opposite party no.3 detained the vehicle and had taken the documents from the driver of the vehicle and thereafter, without hearing the petitioner an order of detention has been passed by opposite party no.3 under section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the IGST Act and imposed penalty of Rs.37,42,935/- towards tax and penalty on goods which were loaded on the vehicle.

4. Shri G.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that against the order dated 22.11.2019, an appeal is provided before the Appellate Authority under section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 and therefore, in view of the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, he prays for and is granted dismissal of this writ petition.

5. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to pay all the due amount including penalty and prays that his truck be released.

6. As Statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order under section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 and also after depositing the whole amount as per order dated 22.11.2019, file a copy of the receipt. Learned counsel for the petitioner also prays for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. In case an application is made along with the appeal by the petitioner, then, the same shall be decided expeditiously as early as possible, by passing a detailed and reasoned order, within a period of

one week from the date of filing of the appeal and on depositing the whole due amount, in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date: 21.1.2020

Arnima

(Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)