M/S Ganga Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioenr State Tax Mobile Squad Unit Iii Gorakhpur And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ganga Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 16, 2025, which imposed a penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the goods could be released under Rule 140 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and requested the Assessing Authority to pass an order to that effect. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not yet filed any application under Rule 140. The Court also observed that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act against the order dated January 16, 2025.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not yet filed any application under Rule 140 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, for the release of goods. Consequently, it could not be said that the Authority had failed to pass an order regarding the same. Regarding the penalty order dated January 16, 2025, the Court found that the petitioner had a clear statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to move an application under Rule 140 of the Rules. If such an application were made, the Assessing Authority was directed to deal with it with utmost expedition, preferably within three days of its filing. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, and procedural prerequisites, such as filing an application, must be met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the available statutory remedies against the penalty order dated 16.01.2025, specifically under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Whether the Assessing Authority has failed to pass an order regarding the release of goods under Rule 140 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the goods in question could be released under Rule 140 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and therefore, the Assessing Authority should be directed to pass an order for the release of goods. The petitioner did not explicitly argue against the penalty order itself but focused on the release of goods. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent, Assistant Commissioner State Tax, did not file a detailed response regarding the petitioner's arguments on Rule 140. However, the Court's observation that no application under Rule 140 had been filed by the petitioner implies that the respondent's position was that no such order could be expected without a formal application.