Bhom Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Special Appeal Bench dismissed the special appeal, upholding the Single Bench's decision to relegate the appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal. However, the Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the perishable nature of the confiscated goods (cumin seed and fennel seed) and the vehicle. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent No. 3 (State Tax Goods and Service Tax Officer) to release the goods and the vehicle forthwith. This release was made conditional upon the appellant furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount payable under Clause (1)(a) or (b) of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The ratio decidendi is that while statutory remedies must generally be exhausted, immediate release of perishable goods can be ordered pending appeal, secured by a bank guarantee.

Facts

The appellant, Bhom Singh, filed a special appeal against a High Court Single Bench order dated October 1, 2018, which dismissed his writ petition. The writ petition challenged an order dated September 25, 2018, passed by an adjudicating authority. This order imposed tax liability and interest on the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the Rajasthan/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Single Bench had granted the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under the Act. The Special Appeal Bench noted that the confiscated goods were cumin seed and fennel seed, which are perishable, as was the vehicle. The Court acknowledged the need for their prompt release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order imposing tax liability and interest under Section 129(3) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, thereby relegating the appellant to the appellate remedy. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the goods (cumin seed and fennel seed) and the vehicle were perishable and needed to be released forthwith. The petitioner likely contended that the writ jurisdiction was appropriate given the perishable nature of the goods, or that the appellate remedy would cause undue delay and hardship. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, Union of India and the State Tax Officers, likely argued that the statutory remedy of appeal under the Act was available and should be pursued, and that the writ petition was not maintainable. They would have supported the order of the adjudicating authority and the Single Bench's decision to direct the appellant to avail the appeal mechanism.