Bombay Kandla Transport PVT LTD Through Its Authorized Representative Abhinav Choubey vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Bombay Kandla Transport Pvt. Ltd., is a transporter whose truck was intercepted in Jharkhand on April 9, 2018, while transporting goods from Delhi to Orissa. The e-way bill for inter-State transportation had been introduced on April 1, 2018. The consignment departed Delhi on April 6, 2018. On April 10, 2018, the vehicle and goods were seized, and a show-cause notice was issued. A penalty under Section 129 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was imposed by order dated April 13, 2018. As no Appellate Authority had been notified by the State Government at that time, the petitioner directly approached the High Court via a writ application. The respondent State later informed the Court that the Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner, Appeals, State Tax) was notified on July 31, 2018.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within three weeks from the date of the order. The Court held that the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court would be considered in computing the period for filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, effectively treating the appeal as filed within time. The reasoning was based on the subsequent notification of the Appellate Authority by the State Government. The Court did not delve into the merits of the penalty imposed or the validity of the e-way bill. The core principle derived is that when a statutory remedy becomes available during the pendency of a writ petition due to subsequent developments, the High Court may direct the petitioner to avail that remedy, condoning the delay caused by the writ proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can approach the High Court directly by way of a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, even if the Appellate Authority was not notified at the time of filing the writ petition? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they approached the High Court directly because, at the time of filing the writ petition, no Appellate Authority had been notified by the State Government, rendering the statutory remedy unavailable. Respondent's contention: The respondent State contended that an Appellate Authority has since been notified, and therefore, the petitioner should be directed to approach the Appellate Authority. The State did not explicitly argue against the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy, but rather highlighted the subsequent notification of the Appellate Authority.