Cj Darcl Logistics Limited & Anr. vs. Commissioner Of State Tax Delhi Goods And Services Tax, Department Of Trade And Taxes, & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the pleas raised by the petitioners, including the alleged improper recording of documents and the deprivation of the appellate remedy, could be considered by the Additional Commissioner in the appellate proceedings. The Court opined that in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it could not delve into such factual controversies. It was not satisfied that the petitioners were deprived of their remedy of appeal due to the actions of the GST Officer. However, to ensure the petitioners' pleas were addressed, the Court directed that a specific consideration of these pleas be made. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal, if filed, was to be decided in accordance with the law, and the petitioners were permitted to raise all their contentions therein. The Additional Commissioner was directed to return a finding on merits on these pleas. The appeal was to be decided within six weeks from the date of institution.

Facts

The petitioners, CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LIMITED & ANR., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated December 28, 2020, passed by a GST Officer. The petition sought a mandamus for the refund of Rs. 4,98,456/- paid as tax and penalty, and costs for the alleged illegal detention of goods. The petitioners contended that due to farmers' protests around Delhi, the E-Way Bill for goods transported expired on December 10, 2020, leading to detention and imposition of tax and penalty. They claimed to have paid these amounts under duress to secure the release of their goods. The respondents argued that the statutory remedy of appeal to the Additional Commissioner was available, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime? 2. Whether the GST Officer's actions, specifically the alleged failure to properly record the production of documents (E-Way Bill and invoice) in FORM GST MOV-01, deprived the petitioners of their right to appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the respondents' actions had deprived them of availing the remedy of appeal. They pointed to FORM GST MOV-01, alleging that the GST Officer had not recorded the documents presented, despite them being produced. They further relied on FORM GST MOV-02, which mentioned "E-Way bill expire," suggesting the E-Way Bill was indeed produced. They contended that the entry in FORM GST MOV-01 was incorrect and that the failure to properly record document production barred their appeal. Revenue's Arguments: The counsel for the respondents stated that the remedy of appeal to the Additional Commissioner was available within the statutory framework, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue.