Ms Windals Precision PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court held that an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal). The Court noted the submission by the State counsel that the order dated 18.10.2024 was either served on the petitioner or uploaded on the GST common portal. Given the existence of this statutory remedy, the Court found it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue their appeal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the illegality of the confiscation and penalty.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms Windals Precision Pvt Ltd, has challenged an order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. This order resulted in the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicles and goods, and imposed a penalty of ₹6,49,742/-. The petitioner contends that the confiscation and penalty are illegal, as the vehicle was en route to a weighing machine within their declared principal place of business, and the order was based on an assumption of tax evasion. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, submitted the final order dated 18.10.2024, which was purportedly served on the petitioner on the same date, or uploaded on the GST common portal as per Section 169 of the Act. The petitioner claims the order was not served.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation of goods and vehicles and the imposition of penalty under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, are illegal, considering the petitioner's submission that the vehicle was proceeding for weighing within the principal place of business and the order was based on an assumption of tax evasion. 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, against the order passed by the Proper Officer. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the confiscation and penalty were illegal as the goods and vehicle were not involved in tax evasion but were on their way for weighing within the business premises. They also contended that the order, though produced by the State counsel, had not been served upon them. Respondents' arguments: The State counsel submitted that the final order dated 18.10.2024 was passed and either served on the petitioner on that date or uploaded on the GST common portal in compliance with Section 169 of the Act. They highlighted the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act.