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 before the Allahabad High Court 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 a direction for the Assessing Authority to pass an order in this regard. 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 Assessing Authority had failed to pass an order regarding the release of goods. 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 liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Rule 140. 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 January 16, 2025, under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Assessing Authority can be directed to pass an order for release of goods under Rule 140 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, when no application has been filed by the petitioner under the said rule? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the goods could be released under Rule 140 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and urged the Court to direct the Assessing Authority to pass an order for their release. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the availability of the Section 107 appeal remedy in the provided text, but their prayer implies seeking immediate relief rather than pursuing the appellate route first. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (Assistant Commissioner State Tax) implicitly argued that the petitioner had not followed the prescribed procedure by not filing an application under Rule 140. The respondent also implicitly supported the availability of the statutory appeal under Section 107 for challenging the penalty order.