Shobhnath Bajpai vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Minister Of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi And 6 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's dispute is essentially with the proprietor of M/s Kanha Brick Field, not with the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities had merely taken a decision to release the goods in favor of the proprietor of the brick kiln, who is the registered entity with GST, in accordance with Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal, assuming he has the locus standi to file one. If the petitioner's claim is not maintainable, then the remedy would lie elsewhere. The Court explicitly stated that it cannot issue directions to entertain an appeal if the limitation period for filing has already expired. Therefore, subject to these observations regarding the availability of alternative remedies and the petitioner's locus standi, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Shobhnath Bajpai, claims to have a partnership deed with M/s Kanha Brick Field, a proprietorship firm. The impugned order released goods in favor of the proprietor of M/s Kanha Brick Field, who is the wife of the late proprietor and the registered proprietor with GST. The petitioner asserts a dispute between himself and the proprietor of M/s Kanha Brick Field, alleging an agreement between the parties. The revenue authorities, represented by the concerned officials, took a decision under Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, to release the goods to the registered proprietor of the brick kiln. The petitioner's grievance is not the subject matter of the revenue's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the release of goods to the proprietor of M/s Kanha Brick Field, given the dispute is between the petitioner and the proprietor? 2. Whether this Court can direct the entertainment of an appeal if the limitation period for filing such an appeal has expired? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that there is a dispute between him and the proprietor of M/s Kanha Brick Field, and an agreement exists between them. He appears to be seeking intervention from the Court regarding this dispute. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through learned Senior Standing Counsel, informed the Court that the goods were released in favor of the proprietor of M/s Kanha Brick Field, who is the registered proprietor with GST. The revenue authorities acted in terms of Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The revenue implicitly argues that the petitioner's dispute is with the proprietor and not with the revenue's action, and that the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere or through a statutory appeal.