Chandimata Iron vs. The State Of Tripura And Ors.

Held

The Court held that since the order under challenge was appealable, the petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appeal. The Court noted that the limitation period for filing the appeal had not yet expired. Considering the facts, the Court directed the provisional release of the petitioner's goods (TMT Bars) upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax and penalty demand and furnishing a bond for the remaining amount. Additionally, if the transporter approached the competent authority for provisional release of the vehicle and offered a bond for the full value of the tax and penalty, the vehicle would be released to the transporter. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Chandimata Iron, had its goods (TMT Bars) detained, seized, and ordered for confiscation by the GST authorities of the State. The authorities alleged transportation of goods without a valid e-Way bill and demanded tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,82,073/-. The competent authority passed an order to this effect on January 8, 2020. The petitioner contended that the goods were for inter-State sale and there was no lapse in carrying a valid e-Way bill during transit. The petitioner intended to file a statutory appeal against the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can pursue a statutory appeal against the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the competent authority under the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they would prefer an appeal against the order dated 08.01.2020. They also highlighted the provisions for provisional release of goods under Section 129(2) read with Section 67(6) of the Act, subject to suitable conditions. Respondent's contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition and relied on the affidavit-in-reply.