Sri B Narasimha Pai vs. Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri B. Narasimha Pai, a proprietor dealing in essential oils, challenged proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer (Respondent No. 2) under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was transporting goods valued at Rs. 4,76,000/- from Kundapura to Mysore. The E-way bill, however, erroneously showed Bengaluru as the place of delivery. The goods vehicle was intercepted in Mysore, and proceedings were initiated on the ground that the movement from Bengaluru to Mysore was without a valid E-way bill. The petitioner's explanation that the error was in the GSTN and not deliberate was rejected, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,71,360/-. The petitioner paid this penalty to secure the release of the goods and then filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the proceedings and refund of the penalty.
Held
The Court held that it was not in dispute that the petitioner had paid the penalty determined by the respondents and the goods were released. Given this position, the Court found no impediment for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of a statutory appeal provided under the Act for redressal of his grievance. The Court noted that the contentions raised by the petitioner revolved around factual aspects of the case. Therefore, the Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law, without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are arbitrary and without jurisdiction, warranting interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the proceedings under Section 129 were arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The error in the E-way bill regarding the place of delivery was a mistake in the GSTN and not a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was unsustainable, and the penalty amount paid should be refunded. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the learned Additional Government Advocate, argued that the petitioner had approached the High Court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act. They supported the order impugned.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 06.03.2019 of the respondent No.2 in MOV-07 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the penalty of Rs.1,71,360/-.
The petitioner is the dealer and supplier of essential oils, perfumery compounds and aromatic chemicals having establishments at Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District and also at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, as contended.
It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the purchase order of M/s. Wipro Enterprises [P] Limited, for supply of Cinnamon leaf oil, Citronellol oil and Palmorosa oil of various quantities totally valued at Rs.4,76,000/-, the goods were transported after generating invoice. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has intercepted with the goods vehicle at the suburb of Mysore and proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007 ['Act' for short] on the ground that consignment even though was sent from Kundapura to Mysore, the E-way bill was showing the place of delivery as Bengaluru and since the goods were intercepted at Mysore, the respondent No.2 recorded that the movement of the goods from Bengaluru to Mysore was without E-way bill. The petitioner, requested the respondents to release the seized goods and tried to explain that there was no deliberate mistake in respect of place of the delivery and the error was in GSTN and not on the part of the petitioner. However, rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner, order has been passed by the respondent under Section 129 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the conduct of the respondent No.2 in initiating the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act is wholly arbitrary and without juri iction and the same cannot be sustained. Hence, seeks for setting aside the order and to issue a direction to the respondents to refund the penalty amount of Rs.1,71,360/- paid pursuant to the orders impugned.
Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the order impugned submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties ad perusing the material on record it is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the penalty determined by the respondents and the goods were released to the petitioner. If that being the position, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act for redressal of his grievance as the contentions raised by the petitioner revolves around the factual aspects of the case.
In such circumstances, there is no other option for this Court except to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as aforesaid. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law without objecting to the aspect of limitation. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE
NC.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.