M/S Metro Logistics (Transporter) 23Axrpp6298F1Zu vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajhans Impex (P) Limited, the Court emphasized that writ petitions should not bypass the statutory appellate process unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction or other exceptional circumstances. The Court found that the authority passing the impugned order appeared competent and that the grounds raised by the petitioners on merits were to be considered by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal. The Court directed that if the appeal is preferred within 15 days, the issue of limitation would not be a bar. The interim relief granted earlier was also continued in favour of the petitioners.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Metro Logistics and others, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.09.2023, which imposed a penalty and ordered the confiscation of a truck. The petitioners contended that the order violated Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court initially granted an interim order for the temporary release of the vehicle, which was later modified. The respondents raised an objection regarding the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court noted that the authority passing the impugned order appeared competent and that the grounds on merit should be considered by the Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under the GST Act when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, as per Section 107 of the GST Act? The petitioners argued that the impugned order violated specific provisions of the GST Act (Sections 129 and 130), implying a potential lack of jurisdiction or gross illegality that warranted High Court intervention. They sought to have the merits of their case decided by the High Court. The respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh and others) contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the GST Act. They relied on the principle that writ petitions should generally not be entertained when an alternative efficacious remedy exists, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajhans Impex (P) Limited.