Vanrajbhai Hasmukhbhai Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The Court noted that all defenses and contentions available to the petitioner could be raised before the appellate authority. Furthermore, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, citing his status as a habitual defaulter and tax evader, with at least 10 instances of being caught without e-way bills. The Court observed the petitioner's modus operandi of transporting goods without an e-way bill and paying taxes only when caught and the truck detained. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy is available, especially in cases involving alleged habitual tax evasion.

Facts

The petitioner, Vanrajbhai Hasmukhbhai Chauhan, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his truck and goods detained by GST authorities. Initially, the detention was due to the absence of an e-way bill, under-invoiced bill amounts, and a blank LR. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay taxes. Subsequently, a final order of assessment under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was passed, demanding tax and penalty. This order was challenged via an amendment to the petition. The Department's affidavit revealed the petitioner to be a habitual offender with at least 10 prior instances of being caught transporting goods without an e-way bill, suggesting a pattern of tax evasion and payment only upon detention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's contention: The order passed under Section 129(3) is in breach of the principles of natural justice as only seven days' time was granted before its passing, thus warranting the entertainment of the writ petition. Revenue's contention: The order passed under Section 129(3) is appealable, and therefore, the writ petition challenging this order should not be entertained. The petitioner is also a habitual defaulter and tax evader.