Transporter's writ petition dismissed for lacking proper invoices on textile goods, directed to Section 107 GST appellate remedy

The HC dismissed a writ petition filed by a transporter challenging detention of goods and vehicle by State Tax Officer. The petitioner was transporting 58 bundles of textile/hosiery garments from Tamil Nadu to Telangana, with 33 bundles lacking proper invoices and 25 bundles having neither invoices nor lorry receipts. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding goods valuation cannot be determined in writ proceedings and directed the petitioner to pursue alternate remedy under Section 107 of GST Act before appellate authority with required pre-deposit of 25% of determined amount.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11546/2022
- Dismissal of Writ Petition by learned Single Judge
- Relief sought in the Writ Petition
- Detention of goods and penalty imposed
- Applicability of Section 129(1)(b) of GST Acts
- Appellate remedy under Section 107 of GST Enactments
- Pre-deposit requirement under Section 107
- Interpretation of facts and value of seized goods
- Direction to file appeal under TNGST Act, 2017

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.05.2022 in W.P.No.11546/2022, where the Writ Petition was dismissed, but the appellant was given liberty to seek remedy before the Appellate Authority. The relief sought in the Writ Petition was to quash the order dated 17.03.2022 under Section 129(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding a penalty of Rs.11,60,000 for transporting goods without proper documents.

2. The appellant, engaged in transportation, was found transporting goods without necessary documents, leading to the detention of the vehicle and the goods. The appellant admitted the mistake but disputed the valuation of the goods and the penalty imposed. The appellant argued that under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Acts, the penalty should be limited to fifty percent of the value of the goods if the owner does not come forward for payment, contrary to the hundred percent penalty imposed.

3. The appellant contended that the order directing them to file an appeal was against their rights under the GST Enactments. The respondent argued that the order was justified and that the appellant had an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Enactments. The respondent also cited a previous decision by the Court in support of their position.

4. The Court noted that the appellant was transporting goods without proper documentation, leading to the detention of the vehicle and goods. The Court found that the value of the seized goods could not be determined in a writ proceeding and should be established before the Appellate Authority. The Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy and pay a pre-deposit of 25% of the determined amount.

5. The Court dismissed the writ appeal, extending the time to file an appeal and directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within one month. The Court emphasized that the appellant needed to establish the disputed facts before the Appellate Authority and that the pre-deposited amount could be adjusted based on the appeal outcome. The judgment upheld the direction to file an appeal under the TNGST Act, 2017, and closed the case without costs.

---