M/S Bagri Steels vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bagri Steels, challenged an order dated 05.01.2024, passed by respondent No.2, imposing penalty and fine under Sections 130(1) and 130(2) of the Central/Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The penalty was levied on goods intercepted on 15.12.2022, being carried in vehicle No. HR-56A-8899. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, seeking to set aside this order.

Held

The Court held that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central/Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which requires a nominal payment of 10% of the amount imposed. The Court opined that it is not for the High Court to delve into disputed questions of fact, such as whether the vehicle was in transit or had stopped to unload goods, as these are matters to be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in The State of Punjab vs. M/s. Shiv Enterprises and others, 2023 (96) GST 120, to support its reasoning. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the remedy before the Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a challenge to an order imposing penalty and fine under Sections 130(1) and 130(2) of the Central/Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, when an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to raise disputed questions regarding whether the vehicle had stopped to unload goods or was in transit, implying these were matters for the High Court to decide. Revenue/State's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's observation implies the existence of a statutory appeal remedy.