M/S S M Metal vs. Commissioner Of State Taxes

Facts

The petitioners, M/s SS Enterprise, filed multiple Special Civil Applications before the Gujarat High Court challenging orders of confiscation of goods and conveyance. These orders were issued by the concerned authority in Form GST MOV-11. The petitioners sought to have the legality and validity of these confiscation orders examined by the High Court. The respondent was the Commissioner of State Taxes. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the confiscation orders, which are now being challenged via writ applications.

Held

The Court held that it should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the writ-applicants under Section 107 of the Act. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter and had declined to interfere solely on the ground of the availability of an alternate statutory remedy. The ratio decidendi is that where a statutory appeal is provided, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to bypass that remedy. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ applications, reserving liberty for the writ-applicants to prefer appropriate appeals before the appellate authority. The Court also clarified that pending appeals, it would be open for the appellants to move for provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act, and the appellate authority should hear such applications expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality and validity of the orders of confiscation of goods and conveyance passed in Form GST MOV-11, despite the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner argued that the High Court should look into the legality and validity of the confiscation orders. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.