Court upholds tax penalty on transport of building material without documentation. Alternative remedy available.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of tax and penalty on a petitioner for transporting building material without proper documentation. The petitioner's truck was seized, leading to a tax and penalty of Rs. 2,52,810. The court upheld the action based on the lack of relevant papers and the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite the petitioner's request for release by providing security, the court emphasized the availability of an appellate remedy and declined to interfere when an alternative legal recourse was accessible.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of tax and penalty on petitioner for transporting building material without relevant papers.
2. Interpretation of Section 67(6) and Section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Applicability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act.
4. Dismissal of the writ petition due to the existence of an alternative remedy.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's truck was seized for transporting building material without proper documentation, leading to the imposition of a substantial tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,52,810. The Commercial Tax Department justified the action based on the lack of relevant papers.

2. The petitioner's counsel relied on Section 67(6) and Section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 67(6) allows for the provisional release of seized goods upon execution of a bond or payment of applicable tax, interest, and penalty. Section 129 outlines the consequences of transporting goods in contravention of the Act, providing options for release upon payment of tax and penalty or furnishing security.

3. The State Counsel argued that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Act before the Commissioner. The court acknowledged the availability of an appellate remedy, emphasizing the petitioner's right to seek release of goods and the vehicle by providing a bank guarantee as security.

4. Despite the petitioner's plea for release based on furnishing security, the court dismissed the writ petition citing the existence of an alternative remedy through the appellate process under Section 107. The decision was made on the grounds of not interfering when an alternative legal recourse is available to address the issue effectively.

---