TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>HC confirms authority's power under Sections 129 and 130 CGST Act to impose penalties and confiscate vehicles</h1> <h3>M/s Metro Logistics (Transporter) 23AXRPP6298F1ZU And Others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others</h3> M/s Metro Logistics (Transporter) 23AXRPP6298F1ZU And Others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others - 2025:MPHC - IND:19063 ISSUES: Whether the order imposing penalty and confiscation under Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) can be challenged directly before the High Court without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against orders passed by authorities competent under the GST Act when alternative statutory remedies are available.The applicability of limitation and procedural requirements in preferring an appeal against orders under the GST Act after the High Court entertains a writ petition without considering the availability of alternate remedies. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the petitioners' challenge to the penalty and confiscation order under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act is premature as the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is available; hence, the High Court is not the appropriate forum to decide on the merits.The Court reaffirmed that the authority passing the impugned order was competent under the GST Act and that 'the grounds on merit are liable to be considered by the Appellate Authority not by this Court.'Relying on the precedent, the Court held that where the alternative statutory appeal remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions against orders-in-original without the appellant first availing the statutory appeal remedy.The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal within 15 days and held that if the appeal is preferred within this period, 'the issue of limitation will not come in the way.'The interim relief previously granted for temporary release of the vehicle shall continue in favor of the petitioners pending disposal of the appeal. RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 107 (appeal), 129 (detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit), and 130 (confiscation of goods and conveyances and levy of penalty).The Court relied on binding precedent emphasizing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction by the authority.The Court followed the principle that the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal is a bar to entertaining writ petitions challenging orders passed under the GST Act.The Court noted that the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to consider merits and procedural compliance including limitation and pre-deposit requirements, except where the Court grants specific relief to condone delay in filing appeal.No dissenting or concurring opinion was recorded; the judgment aligns with established doctrine restricting writ jurisdiction in presence of statutory appeal remedies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
