E-way bill compliance and transport mode disputes make writ review unsuitable; statutory remedies must be pursued instead.

A writ challenge to a penalty order under section 129(3) of the CGST Act was held unsuitable where the dispute depended on factual questions about e-way bill compliance and the actual mode of transport. Rule 138(2A) allows generation of an e-way bill before or after movement begins, while Rule 138(14)(b) addresses transport by special carriers such as railways. Because the issues included whether the goods moved only by railway, whether any other conveyance was used, and whether the e-way bill requirements were met, the matter was not fit for adjudication under Article 226. The party was directed to pursue the statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a penalty order under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was maintainable in the presence of disputed questions of fact concerning e-way bill compliance and the mode of transportation.

Analysis: Rule 138(2A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permits generation of an e-way bill before or after commencement of movement, while Rule 138(14)(b) governs transport through special carriers such as railways. The controversy turned on whether the goods were transported only by railway, whether any other mode of conveyance was involved, and whether the requirements relating to the e-way bill were satisfied. These matters were factual in nature and were not fit for adjudication in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was therefore required to pursue the statutory remedies.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the penalty order failed.

---