2018 (6) TMI 558 - HC - GST

Challenging Seizure Orders: Appeal Mechanism Clarified

Gati-Kintetsu Express Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kharagpur Range & Others

The court considered a challenge to an order of seizure under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, emphasizing the ... Appealable Order or not? - seizure of vehicle passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 107 of the Act - Held that:- Section 107 of the Act allows any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act of 2017 or the State Goods and Services Tax Act to file an appeal before the appellate authority as may be prescribed. It appears that, the State has prescribed the appellate authority who is the senior Joint Commissioner (Appeals) as the appellate authority - Section 121 is an exception to Section 107 of the Act. While Section 107 of the Act makes every decision or order passed under the Act of 2017 to be appealable, Section 121 makes an exception thereto and states that, few which are recognized in Sub-section (a) to (d) would not be appealable. The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy available. It would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal from the impugned order before the designated appellate authority, either electronically or otherwise, in terms of Rule 109 of the West Bengal Goods and Serves Tax Act, 2017. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to order of seizure under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Applicability of Section 121 of the Act of 2017 on appealable decisions/orders; Availability of statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the Act of 2017; Interpretation of Section 121(b) regarding appealability of seizure orders; Alternative remedy for petitioner; Challenge to imposition of penalty order.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a challenge against an order of seizure under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is considered appealable under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the order falls under the purview of Section 121 of the Act, which carves out exceptions to non-appealable decisions and orders. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment from the Allahabad High Court to support this contention. However, the Additional Advocate General for the respondents highlighted that the appellate authority had been constituted and emphasized the provisions of Section 121, stating that orders related to seizure or retention of books of account may not be appealable.Regarding the availability of the appeal mechanism, the petitioner raised concerns about the lack of provision for filing an appeal on the Goods and Service Tax Act portal. In response, it was pointed out that Rule 109 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 allows for appeals to be filed electronically or through other means. The judgment emphasized the appealability of orders under Section 107 of the Act, which allows aggrieved parties to appeal decisions or orders passed under the Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act within a specified timeframe.The interpretation of Section 121(b) was crucial in this case, as it pertains to the appealability of seizure orders of books of account, registers, and other documents. The judgment clarified that this provision does not extend appeal rights to seizure orders of immovable property or other objects beyond the specified documents. The court highlighted the statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner, directing them to prefer an appeal before the designated appellate authority within a specified timeframe in accordance with Rule 109 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Additionally, the challenge to the imposition of a penalty order was raised during the proceedings, further reinforcing the need for the petitioner to utilize the statutory appeal process. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and directions were provided for the petitioner to file an appeal within the stipulated timeframe for further legal proceedings.