M/S Bharat Iron Store And Another vs. Union Of INDIA Secy. And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bharat Iron Store & Another, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a seizure order dated January 3, 2018, passed by respondents nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner's E-Way Bill was downloaded on January 7, 2017, which was four days after the seizure. A penalty order was subsequently passed on January 11, 2018. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that the existence of a statutory appeal provision meant that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at this stage. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition given the availability of the appellate remedy. The petitioner was advised to take recourse to the statutory remedy available under the law. No specific finding was made on the merits of the seizure or penalty order itself, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the seizure and subsequent penalty were illegal, particularly given the discrepancy in the E-Way Bill's download date relative to the seizure date. The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory appeal process by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioner had a clear and effective alternative remedy through the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the GST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 28 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Bharat Iron Store & Another Respondent :- Union Of India Secy. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey,Vandeep Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
We have heard Shri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the seizure order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the respondent nos.3 and 4. From the record it appears that the E-Way Bill, which has been appended to the petition, it is clear that the E-Way Bill itself was downloaded on 07.01.2017 i.e. four days after the seizure has been made. The penalty order has also been passed on 11.01.2018. In these circumstances, the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.1.2018 pks
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.