M/S Bright Road Logistics vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was being deprived of their right to avail of the remedy of appeal due to the non-appointment of an Appellate Authority. The Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance that they were unable to pursue their appeal or seek interim relief. In light of the submission by the State's counsel that the Appellate Authority would be appointed within a week, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The Court directed that the Department shall not take any coercive steps for the recovery of the penalty amount from the petitioner until the Appellate Authority is appointed and any application for interim relief filed by the petitioner is taken up and decided. The Court disposed of the petition with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bright Road Logistics, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 130 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. This order resulted in the confiscation of goods in transit. The petitioner's primary grievance was that they had filed an appeal against the confiscation order, but no Appellate Authority was in place to hear it. Consequently, they were unable to seek any interim relief. Despite this, the Department initiated coercive steps for recovery of the penalty amount by auctioning the confiscated goods, thereby allegedly depriving the petitioner of their appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is being deprived of their statutory right to appeal due to the non-appointment of an Appellate Authority, and if so, what is the consequence? The petitioner argued that the absence of an appointed Appellate Authority prevented them from pursuing their appeal against the confiscation order and from seeking interim relief. They contended that the Department's initiation of coercive recovery steps, including the auction of confiscated goods, while the appeal was pending and the Appellate Authority was unavailable, was unjust and prejudiced their rights. The respondents (State of Haryana and others) did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-appointment of the Appellate Authority. However, their counsel, on instructions, submitted that the Appellate Authority would be appointed within one week.