Rvm Recycling Metals Private Limited And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors.

Held

The Court acknowledged that while the petitioners might have an alternative remedy before the appellate authority concerning the challenge to the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act, it was of the view that the petitioners were entitled to invoke their rights under Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act. However, the Court noted that no formal application had been filed by the petitioners for invoking Section 129(1)(a). Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioners to apply before the respondents by invoking Section 129(1)(a), subject to establishing their right to maintain such an application. The respondents were directed to dispose of any such formal application, filed within 10 days, expeditiously, preferably within 10 days of its filing. Regarding the challenge to the order passed under Section 129(3), the Court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available, the writ petition would not be entertained on that ground. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the petitioners' claim.

Facts

The petitioners, RVM Recycling Metals Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated September 4, 2024. The goods in question were intercepted and detained on August 10, 2024. The petitioners sought urgent release of the goods by invoking Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, which allows for release upon payment of penalty. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the petitioners' lack of locus and the existence of an alternative remedy. They also contended that the transaction was fictitious and no formal application under Section 129(1)(a) had been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners have the locus to maintain the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act, and if so, whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an alternative remedy. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act for the release of detained goods, and if a formal application is required. Contentions of the Petitioners: The petitioners argued for the extreme urgency of releasing the detained goods. They asserted their right to get the goods released by invoking the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act and submitted that the respondents were preventing them from exercising this right. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners lacked the locus. They further contended that the transaction was fictitious and that the petitioners had not filed any application under Section 129(1)(a). The respondents also pointed out that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioners for challenging the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act.