Sandip Kumar Pandey vs. The Assistant Comm. Of State Tax, Bof (South Bengal) Durgapur Zone, Asansol Unit And Ors.

Held

The Court acknowledged that while an alternative remedy was available for challenging the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act, the petitioner was entitled to invoke their rights under Section 129(1)(a) for the release of goods. However, the Court noted that no formal application had been filed by the petitioner under Section 129(1)(a). Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a formal application before the respondents within 10 days, subject to establishing their right to maintain such an application. The respondents were directed to dispose of this application expeditiously, preferably within 10 days of its filing. Regarding the challenge to the Section 129(3) order, the Court held that the writ petition would not be entertained due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the petitioner's claim and that the respondent no.1 was free to make a decision in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sandip Kumar Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated August 3, 2024. The goods in question were intercepted and detained on July 21, 2024. The petitioner sought the release of these 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 and others, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the petitioner's lack of locus and the fictitious nature of the transaction. They also contended that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition, particularly concerning the challenge to the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act? 2. Whether the petitioner can invoke the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act for the release of goods, despite the pendency of proceedings under Section 129(3)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there was extreme urgency for the release of the detained goods and that they wished to exercise their right under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. They argued that the respondents were preventing them from doing so. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner lacked locus standi and the transaction was fictitious. They further submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act and had not yet filed any application under Section 129(1)(a).