M/S Thoppil Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 20.10.2020, passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is an appealable order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the writ petition was not entertained directly. The Court reasoned that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, which is generally preferred over invoking writ jurisdiction when such a remedy exists. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the applicability of Section 129(1)(a) or the release of goods and conveyance, as these issues were rendered moot by the availability of the appellate remedy. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to file an appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Thoppil Agencies, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, challenging an order dated 20.10.2020 passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner sought to quash this order and prayed for permission to pay tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the respective Acts, deeming the impugned order as passed under that provision. They also sought a direction to release the detained conveyance and goods, which were detained pursuant to an order dated 13.11.2019 under Section 129(1) of the CGST/KGST/IGST Acts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.10.2020, passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST/IGST Acts, is amenable to challenge by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, or if an alternative statutory remedy is available. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order and have it deemed as passed under Section 129(1)(a), implying a direct challenge to the order's nature and seeking specific relief. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the existence of an alternative remedy was a key consideration.