Shahul Hameed. A vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THUR AY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2021 PETITIONER: SHAHUL HAMEED. A AGED 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.S.TRADING, 13/23-C, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI,PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.VII, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678001. 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.VII, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATA TAX, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19250 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19250 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order issued by the 2nd respondent under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act' for short). As per the impugned order, the goods and conveyance detained by the 1st respondent on 18.07.2021 at Shornur Railway Station, have been ordered to be confiscated under section 130 of CGST Act.
Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 invoking the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various grounds. The grounds raised by the petitioner under five different heads are all matters which can be adjudicated under section 107 of CGST Act, which provides for an appellate remedy. The contentions canvassed by the petitioner require an appreciation of facts and hence do not warrant consideration by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Even in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
W.P.(C) No.19250 of 2021 3 Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s.Commercial Steel Ltd. (C.A. No.5121 of 2021) it was held that the existence of an alternate remedy, though not a bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition must be entertained only in exceptional circumstances that too when there is a breach of fundamental rights or violation of the principles of natural justice or if the order is passed in excess of juri iction or when there is a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. None of the circumstances mentioned above exists in the instant case and hence the remedy of the petitioner is to exhaust statutory remedies. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/16.09.2021
W.P.(C) No.19250 of 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19250/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF INVOICE NO.B-48 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 COPY OF E-WAY BILL GENERATED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 COPY OF FORM GST MOV 01 STATEMENT OF THE OWNER/ PERSON-IN-CHARGE OF THE GOODS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3(A) COPY OF FORM GST MOV 02 ORDER FOR PHYSICAL VERTIFICATION/INSPECTION OF THE CONVEYANCE, GOODS AND DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM GST MOV-10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 COPY OF LETTER IS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 COPY OF ORDER IN WP(C)NO.15307/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P7 COPY OF ORDER IN FORM GST MOV 11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.21907/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.