2023 (5) TMI 965 - HC - GST

Petition to Challenge Goods Detention Dismissed; Emphasizes Exhausting Statutory Remedy Before Seeking Extraordinary Jurisdiction

M/s Super Tech Forgings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State Of U.P. And 2 Others

M/s Super Tech Forgings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State Of U.P. And 2 Others - TMI Issues involved:Challenge to the detention of goods during transportation; Allegation of fake Tax Invoice; Jurisdiction of U.P. State authorities to detain and seize goods; Demand of penalty from petitioner; Availability of statutory remedy of appeal.Detention of Goods:The petitioner challenged the action taken by revenue authorities to detain goods, specifically aluminum wire rod being transported from Delhi to Punjab through U.P. The goods were accompanied by a valid Tax Invoice and e-way bill issued by the consigner/dealer in favor of the petitioner. The truck carrying the goods was detained by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad for verification.Allegation of Fake Tax Invoice:A show cause notice was issued to the driver of the truck, alleging that the Tax Invoice accompanying the goods was fake. This allegation arose from information indicating that the consigner's registration had been suspended and its purchases were questionable. The petitioner responded to the doubts raised but claimed that no appropriate order was passed or served on them. Subsequently, a significant penalty of Rs. 72,44,288/- was demanded from the petitioner.Jurisdiction Issue:The petitioner contended that the U.P. State authorities did not have the jurisdiction to detain and seize the goods, and even if they did, the power was not exercised validly. The petitioner argued that the demands and actions were unjustified, and the authorities did not have the authority to impose penalties without proper orders or service.Statutory Remedy of Appeal:The Standing Counsel argued that the order passed was appealable and suggested that all issues could be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. The court, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, noted that in cases involving fiscal statutes where a statutory remedy of appeal exists, interference at the initial stage might not be appropriate.Court's Decision:The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the petitioner must exhaust that remedy before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Given the disputed facts regarding the consigner, the transaction's genuineness, and other relevant issues, the court deemed it premature to conclude a lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to pursue their statutory remedies for a more effective and expeditious resolution.