Court dismisses challenge to GST Officer's order, emphasizes statutory remedies over Article 226 relief.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the GST Officer's order for tax refund and penalty, and illegal detention of goods. The court ruled that the petitioners should pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court granted the petitioners liberty to pursue the appellate remedy within six weeks, ensuring all raised pleas could be presented in the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to GST Officer's order for tax refund and penalty, illegal detention of goods, availability of statutory remedy of appeal, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Officer dated 28th December, 2020, seeking a mandamus for the refund of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,98,456 and costs for the illegal detention of their goods. They argued that due to the expiration of the E-Way Bill on 10th December, 2020, the goods were detained during the farmers' protest around Delhi, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty. The respondents contended that the petitioners have the remedy of appeal available to them before the Additional Commissioner within the statutory framework, making the writ petition not maintainable.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the respondents' actions deprived them of availing the remedy of appeal, emphasizing that the respondent GST Officer did not record the documents presented by the petitioners, despite being produced. The petitioner argued that the E-Way Bill was indeed presented, as evident from the documents, and the entry made by the GST Officer was incorrect. The court noted that the issues raised by the petitioners could be considered by the Additional Commissioner in the appellate remedy, stating that they cannot be drawn into factual controversies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy before the Additional Commissioner, ensuring that all raised pleas could be presented in the appeal. The court directed the appeal to be decided within six weeks from the date of institution, with a copy of the order to be filed along with the appeal for reference. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and exhausting statutory remedies before seeking intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---