M/S Sonal Roadlines vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act/HGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel conceded this fact. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without delving into the merits of the case. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it would be dealt with on merits without any objection regarding delay. Furthermore, coercive steps pursuant to the impugned Form GST MOV-09 dated 11.05.2022 were to be held in abeyance until the filing of the appeal and subject to further orders from the First Appellate Authority. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sonal Roadlines, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order passed by the State Tax Officer. The specific order under challenge is Form GST MOV-09 dated 11.05.2022. The petitioner's counsel, at the outset of the hearing, conceded that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act/HGST Act, 2017 was available. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition and requested a time frame of four weeks to file the appeal. The Court, without delving into the merits, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the State Tax Officer, as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act/HGST Act, 2017? The petitioner's counsel conceded that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act/HGST Act, 2017 was available against the impugned order. Therefore, the primary issue was not contested by the petitioner. The respondent, State Tax Officer, did not present any arguments as the petitioner conceded the existence of the statutory remedy and sought withdrawal of the writ petition.