Msk Enterprises vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the respondents' contention regarding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the impugned order itself stipulated that the seized goods could be released upon the petitioner furnishing security. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the release of goods by complying with the provisions of Section 129(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, MSK Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.03.2025, which raised a demand of Rs. 10,81,503/-. The demand arose from the petitioner mentioning an incorrect registration number of an unregistered dealer in a sale transaction. The respondents seized the petitioner's vehicle and goods, refusing their release unless the entire demand was deposited in cash, despite the petitioner offering security. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal and pointing out that the impugned order itself allowed for the release of goods upon furnishing security.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy of appeal is available and the impugned order permits the release of seized goods upon furnishing security? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the demand was raised solely due to a clerical error in mentioning an incorrect dealer number and that the authorities were illegally withholding the release of seized goods and vehicle, demanding full cash payment instead of accepting security as permitted by law. Respondents' contention: The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. They also highlighted that the impugned order itself provided for the release of goods upon furnishing security, thereby negating the petitioner's claim of being denied this recourse.