Fayiz Nangaparambil vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Fayiz Nangaparambill, challenged a detention order in Form GST MOV-06 passed by respondent No. 3 under Section 129(1) of the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and related provisions. The order was issued concerning areca nuts. The Court was informed that a final order imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,22,250/- had been passed on May 30, 2023. The petitioner agreed to deposit the penalty to secure the release of the goods. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the penalty on July 8, 2023, and the areca nuts were released. The penalty was imposed on the grounds that the petitioner-firm was not involved in the business of areca nuts, but rather in stationary items, and that both firms were not engaged in the supply of areca nuts.

Held

The Court held that once a final order imposing penalty has been passed by the authorities in accordance with the statutory provisions of the GST Act, it is open for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court referenced the Apex Court's decision in The State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Enterprises & others, which stated that writ petitions against show cause notices should not be entertained. In this case, a final order imposing penalty had already been passed, and the petitioner had deposited the penalty and secured the release of goods. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue their alternative statutory remedy. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a challenge to a detention order and subsequent penalty imposed under the GST Act when a statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought relief from the High Court challenging the detention order and the penalty imposed. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment, beyond their initial engagement with the Court regarding the deposit of penalty for goods release. Respondent's (State of Haryana & others) Contention: The State counsel informed the Court about the final order passed and the penalty imposed. The State argued that once a final order has been passed as per statutory provisions, the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The State relied on the Apex Court's decision in The State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Enterprises & others, 2023 (96) GST 120, which held that writ petitions against show cause notices should not be entertained.