2024 (1) TMI 1357 - HC - GST

Legal Challenge Dismissed: Petitioner Advised to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Seeking Judicial Intervention

HC rejected the petition under Art. 226, instructing the petitioner to seek redress from the respondent authority. The court permitted the draft amendment ... Non-entertainment of writ petition where statutory remedy is available - availability of alternative remedy by filing reply in Form GST MOV-10 - release of detained goods under the mandatory provision of section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - allowance of amendment to pleadingsAllowance of amendment to pleadings - Draft amendment to the petition was allowed and to be carried out forthwith. - HELD THAT: - Learned counsel for the petitioner tendered a draft amendment during the hearing. The Court permitted the amendment and directed that it be carried out immediately. The allowance was procedural and effected during the oral order without further substantive adjudication on amended pleadings.Amendment allowed in terms of the draft and to be carried out forthwith.Non-entertainment of writ petition where statutory remedy is available - availability of alternative remedy by filing reply in Form GST MOV-10 - release of detained goods under the mandatory provision of section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Writ petition not entertained because petitioner had filed a reply in Form GST MOV-10 and was relegated to the respondent authority for redressal of grievances, including claim for release of goods. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed its reply to the show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10, indicating invocation of the statutory remedy. In view of this, the petition seeking quashing of the detention order and directions for release of goods under the provision relied upon was not entertained by the Court. The petitioner's remedy before the respondent authority remained available and appropriate for adjudication of claims relating to detention, confiscation notice and release under the provision cited by the petitioner.Petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to approach the respondent authority for redressal of the grievance.Final Conclusion: The Court permitted the amendment to the petition and declined to entertain the writ because the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy by filing a reply in Form GST MOV-10; the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to seek relief from the respondent authority, including any claim for release of goods under the cited provision. The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the petitioner to approach the respondent authority for redressal of the grievance raised in the petition. The draft amendment was allowed to be carried out forthwith. The petition sought various reliefs, including the release of goods and quashing of detention and confiscation orders. The petitioner had already filed a reply to the show-cause notice.