Ms Bokaro Transport Company Through Its Authorized Signatory Sri Anand Choubey vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Commissioner Of State Taxes

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the JGST Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV-09. The Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Dumka Circle, was directed to provide the GSTIN number to the petitioner to facilitate online appeal filing. If the appeal could not be accepted online due to technical reasons, the petitioner was permitted to file it manually. The Court also noted the petitioner's readiness to furnish a bond and bank guarantee equivalent to the liability fastened under Form GST MOV-09 for the release of the vehicle. Upon filing the appeal and furnishing the bond and bank guarantee, the appellate authority was directed to release the vehicle forthwith. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies, including appeals, should be pursued, and the authorities must facilitate the exercise of such remedies by addressing technical impediments.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bokaro Transport Company, filed a writ petition challenging the detention of its vehicle and the imposition of tax and penalty. The petitioner argued that the proceedings, culminating in an order dated June 2, 2022, under Section 129(3) of the JGST Act, were concluded on the same day the detention order under Section 129(1) and show cause notice were issued. The petitioner claimed that no summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 was issued, preventing them from filing an appeal. The appellate authority's office was vacant until January 16, 2022, and the petitioner moved the court on June 16, 2022. The petitioner's vehicle remained detained, and technical difficulties arose due to the absence of a GSTIN number for the owner, as proceedings were against the driver. The State submitted that the appellate authority took charge on June 17, 2022, and that an appeal could be preferred against the order in Form GST MOV-09.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings leading to the imposition of tax and penalty are vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice and the prescribed procedure under Section 129 of the JGST Act, 2017, particularly concerning the issuance of Form GST DRC-07 and the opportunity to appeal? 2. Whether the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the JGST Act, 2017, given the technical difficulties faced, including the absence of a GSTIN number for the owner and the unavailability of the appellate authority? Petitioner's arguments: The proceedings are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and Sections 68 and 129 of the JGST Act, 2017. The lack of a Form GST DRC-07 prevents appeal, and the vehicle is detained. The petitioner is ready to furnish a bond for vehicle release and approach the appellate authority. The petitioner also reiterated the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The appellate authority has taken charge. The State sought instructions on whether GST DRC-07 was issued. On instructions, the State submitted that an appeal can be preferred even against the order in Form GST MOV-09. The GSTIN number can be provided to the petitioner-owner if they approach the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 and seek release of the vehicle by furnishing a bond and bank guarantee.