M/S S S Enterprises vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court held that it would not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction as an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of The Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was available to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court for the first time on 19.10.2023, after the detention order was served on 04.10.2023 and a penalty order dated 18.10.2023 had been passed. The petitioner was advised to file an appeal before the appellate authority, subject to depositing 25% of the penalty amount as per Section 107(6) of the Act. The Court reasoned that if the appellant pays the specified amount, recovery proceedings for the balance shall be stayed, and the appellate authority has the power to set aside the order if found to be without jurisdiction. To protect the petitioner's interest, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two weeks of its filing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.S. Enterprises, challenged a physical verification/inspection order (Form GST MOV-02 dated 28.09.2023) issued by respondent No.2, and sought the release of detained goods and conveyance. The goods were detained on 28.09.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court on 19.10.2023. The State produced an order dated 18.10.2023, which was served on the conveyance in-charge on 04.10.2023, imposing a penalty under Section 129(1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the action violated Circular No.41 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India when an alternative efficacious remedy is available under Section 107 of The Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The physical verification/inspection order and subsequent penalty were issued in violation of Circular No.41 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, indicating a lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and did not meet statutory requirements. Revenue/State's contention: An appeal is maintainable under Section 107 of The Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the penalty order.