Aman Kumar Rathaur vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Aman Kumar Rathaur, the consignor, challenged the interception proceedings initiated by the State Tax Officer, Mobile Wing, Ludhiana. The conveyance bearing registration HR38 W 0782 was intercepted on March 6, 2023, at Mandi Gobindgarh. An order in Form GST MOV-02 was issued, directing the conveyance to be stationed at Ludhiana for inspection. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated March 13, 2023, was issued, alleging that purchases were made from M/s. BN Traders, which had not shown any purchases or paid any tax. The tentative tax liability was determined at Rs. 76,41,499/- for the period March 1, 2023, to March 6, 2023. The petitioner approached the High Court instead of filing a reply, arguing that the goods were seized from the consignee's premises and were not in transit, thus challenging the jurisdiction of the authorities. An interim order was passed on March 24, 2023, staying the passing of MOV-02.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to present their case before the respondents. The Court reasoned that it is not the role of the High Court to act as an Assessing Authority or to delve into disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court in M/s. Shiv Enterprises (supra) has held that entertaining a writ petition against a show cause notice and quashing it is premature and not justified, as such matters are to be considered in appropriate proceedings. The Court noted that while the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order releasing the goods in the Shiv Enterprises case, it did not condone the High Court entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice. Therefore, the present writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy of responding to the show cause notice. All interim orders were vacated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an interception notice (GST MOV-02) and a show cause notice when the petitioner has an alternative remedy to respond to the show cause notice, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Punjab vs. M/s. Shiv Enterprises and others, 2023 (96) GST 120? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the authorities lacked jurisdiction because the goods were seized from the consignee's premises and were not in transit. They relied on the tax invoice and e-Way bill showing the consignment of iron scrap to M/s. Bansal Casting. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the petitioner had challenged only a notice and that the vehicle had been released. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Shiv Enterprises, which held that entertaining a writ petition against a show cause notice is not justified and that the writ court should not go into disputed questions of fact.