TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Vehicle detention plea under Article 226 rejected; petitioners directed to CGST Act Sections 130(7) and 107 remedies</h1> HC dismissed the petition challenging detention of a vehicle carrying 20,000 liters of white kerosene without requisite documents, holding it not ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Provisional release of vehicles - detention of vehicle for transporting goods (20,000 liters of white kerosene) without requisite documents - whether the petitioners had produced documents before the proper officer at the time of hearing? - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that, petitioners have not sought any relief to quash the orders of confiscation. In such circumstances, without any challenge against the orders of confiscation, the provisional release of the vehicle cannot be granted by this Court as Section 130(7) of the CGST Act itself provides that an order of release can be issued by the proper officer himself in accordance with law, provided the conditions therein are satisfied. Further, petitioners can avail the remedy of challenging the orders of confiscation before the appellate authority, in accordance with law. When such alternative remedies are available, remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked, especially since there are disputed questions of facts. In view of the disputed facts regarding production of documents, it is refrained from directing any release and instead relegate the petitioners to pursue their statutory remedies either under Section 130(7) or under Section 107 of the CGST Act - petition disposed off. Summary:In the Kerala High Court, the petitioners sought provisional release of two vehicles detained for transporting goods (20,000 liters of white kerosene) without requisite documents. The vehicles were confiscated under Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 orders dated 04.02.2025. The petitioners contended that documents, including tax invoices (Ext.P5 and Ext.P7), were produced but ignored in the confiscation orders. The Court noted a factual dispute on whether documents were submitted before the proper officer.Crucially, the Court held that since the petitioners did not challenge the confiscation orders themselves, provisional release under Section 130(7) of the CGST Act cannot be granted by this Court. The proper officer alone may order release if conditions are met. The Court emphasized that statutory remedies, including appeals under Section 130(7) or Section 107 of the CGST Act, remain available and must be pursued. Given the disputed facts and availability of alternative remedies, the writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained.The Court disposed of the petition, excluding the time spent in the writ petition from limitation for filing appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
