Sasikumar R vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Sasikumar R, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging a confiscation order dated August 9, 2021, passed by the State Tax Officer (2), Vadodara. The petitioner also sought the release of a conveyance bearing registration No. TN53M7366 without demanding any security. During the pendency of the petition, an interim order was passed on November 25, 2021, directing the release of the conveyance upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the payment of tax, penalty, and fine in lieu of confiscation. The conveyance was subsequently released as per this interim order. The present order is being passed after the conveyance has been released.

Held

The Court held that since a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to challenge the confiscation order dated August 9, 2021, the High Court would not entertain the writ petition on this ground alone. The Court reasoned that when a statutory remedy is available, it is loath to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case and expressed no opinion on the merits of the impugned order. The petitioner was relegated to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. However, the Court found the petitioner's request to continue the interim arrangement reasonable. Therefore, the arrangement-cum-interim relief granted by the order dated November 25, 2021, by which the conveyance was released upon furnishing a bank guarantee, was directed to continue, provided the petitioner extends the bank guarantee to keep it alive during the pendency of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should entertain a petition when a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to challenge the impugned order? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the confiscation order on its merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was available to the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. The revenue argued that the appellate authority is better equipped to appreciate and adjudicate the various issues raised by the petitioner against the impugned order.