2018 (8) TMI 64 - HC - GST

High Court decision on goods interception & seizure under GST Act Section 129 stresses procedural compliance

The High Court dismissed the petition regarding the interception and seizure of goods during transport under section 129 of the Goods & Service Tax ... Detention and seizure of goods in transit - release of detained or seized goods on compliance with conditions - alternate efficacious remedy under section 129 - writ jurisdiction and refusal to exercise extraordinary relief where statutory remedy existsAlternate efficacious remedy under section 129 - writ jurisdiction and refusal to exercise extraordinary relief where statutory remedy exists - Availability and adequacy of the statutory remedy under section 129 for obtaining release of detained goods and the Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction in presence of that remedy. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that sub-section (1) and sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 129 provide a complete and efficacious mechanism for detention, seizure and release of goods in transit, subject to satisfaction of the conditions set out therein. Given the existence of this statutory scheme the petitioner was not entitled to seek extraordinary writ relief as a first resort. The petitioners had not challenged the seizure or detention; nor had they invoked the full statutory procedure provided for release. The Court emphasised that, absent a showing of exhaustion or unavailability of the statutory remedy, or of exceptional circumstances, it will not interfere by exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction merely to secure an immediate release. The Court further observed that routine resort to writ relief to circumvent the statutory procedure would be contrary to the comprehensive nature of the legislation and the changed regime. [Paras 2, 5, 6]Petition dismissed insofar as it sought writ intervention for unconditional release; petitioner must pursue the remedy under section 129 and the Court will not exercise its writ jurisdiction in the presence of the statutory remedy.Release of detained or seized goods on compliance with conditions - detention and seizure of goods in transit - Whether the communication at Exhibit F alone was sufficient to entitle the petitioner to release of the goods. - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the submission that the letter produced as Exhibit F (communications at pages 30-31) by itself obliged the detaining authority to release the goods. The statutory scheme requires readiness and willingness to comply with the specific conditions for release; mere communication without fulfilling the statutory conditions does not oblige the officer to release the goods. The petitioner's conduct indicated a desire for unconditional release rather than compliance with the conditions necessary for release under the Act. The Court noted that if the petitioner approaches the detaining authority with a proper request and a clear expression of readiness and willingness to comply with the conditions permissible in law, release would be granted as contemplated by the statute. [Paras 3, 4]Exhibit F alone does not entitle the petitioner to release; release may be granted only upon proper request and compliance with the statutory conditions.Final Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed; petitioners must avail the statutory remedy under section 129 by making a proper request and demonstrating readiness to comply with the conditions for release, and the High Court will not grant extraordinary relief in the presence of the adequate statutory mechanism. Issues:Complaint regarding interception of consignment during transport; Detention and seizure of goods and vehicle under section 129 of the Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017; Petitioner's request for release of goods without complying with statutory conditions; Dispute over the sufficiency of communication for obtaining release; Availability of alternate remedy; Jurisdiction of the High Court in interference with statutory procedures.Analysis:The petitioner approached the High Court complaining about the interception of a consignment during transport from their office to Gujarat. They claimed to be manufacturers of copper products, holding necessary registrations and dealing with duty-paid goods for over thirty years. The consignment was detained and goods seized due to the transporter's failure to generate required documents, hindering the petitioner's business operations and commitments to customers. The petitioner sought release of goods to avoid hampering exports and incurring losses, alternatively requesting the detention of the vehicle but release of goods.The Court acknowledged the authority conferred by section 129 of the GST Act to detain, seize, and release goods in transit. It highlighted the procedural requirements for releasing goods under sub-section (1) of section 129, emphasizing compliance with specified clauses. While the seizure and detention were not challenged, the Court noted the mechanism provided by sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 129 for obtaining release, indicating that the petitioner was not without remedy or official consideration at that stage. The Court found the petitioner's communication insufficient to obligate officers to release goods, emphasizing the comprehensive remedy available under section 129, subject to readiness and willingness to comply with conditions.Disagreeing with the petitioner's stance and citing disputes over factual matters, the Court emphasized the importance of approaching concerned officials with proper requests and readiness to comply with legal conditions for obtaining release. It declined to interfere in the writ petition, given the availability of alternate remedies and the comprehensive nature of the legislation. The Court dismissed the petition, cautioning against resorting to shortcuts and emphasizing the need to avoid frustrating statutory proceedings by invoking the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction without fulfilling legal requirements.