Md Yusuf vs. State Tax Officer And Another

Held

The Court held that the detention order was indeed an appellable order, and the learned Single Bench was correct in directing the appellant to approach the appellate authority. The Court noted that confiscation proceedings had not yet commenced. The Court directed the appellant to file an application before the authority who passed the detention order within one week, seeking revocation of the detention order and addressing all allegations. The authority was directed to afford a personal hearing to the appellant within 10 working days of receiving the application and pass a reasoned order on merits. The Court also directed that pending the disposal of the application, the appellant be permitted to provide tarpaulin for securing the goods to prevent deterioration due to weather. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter, which would be considered by the concerned authority. The appeal was disposed of.

Facts

The appellant, Md. Yusuf, challenged a detention order dated August 10, 2022, passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST and WBGST Acts. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, holding that the detention order was an appellable order and the appellant should approach the appellate authority. The appellant is now before the High Court in an intra-Court appeal. The detention order cited multiple allegations: mismatch between goods and documents, fraudulent procurement of WBGST registration, fabricated tax invoices, and transportation of teak sawn timber without valid documents and in a concealed manner, contravening Section 68 read with Section 138A of the CGST and WBGST Acts. The goods and conveyance were detained under Section 129.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention order dated August 10, 2022, passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST and WBGST Acts is an appellable order, thus precluding writ jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the goods were transported with valid documents, including a transit permit from the Forest Department and e-way bills, and that the allegation of fraudulent registration was incorrect. They argued that confiscation proceedings had not yet commenced. Revenue's arguments: The State Tax Officer argued that the department was unaware of the owner's identity, leading to the creation of an ID in the driver's name. They contended that since confiscation had not occurred, the appellant's first remedy was to approach the authority that passed the detention order to seek its revocation by addressing the recorded allegations. They also submitted that the appellant should be allowed to produce documents to establish ownership and valid transportation and registration.