Tiruchy Royal Steels Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court, in Tiruchy Royal Steels Vs Deputy State Tax Officer, Salem, considered a writ appeal arising from the detention of goods under proceedings dated 8 May 2023. The appellant had challenged the detention before the Writ Court, which disposed of the petition by granting liberty to pursue a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Writ Court also permitted the appellant to apply under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act for provisional release of the detained goods, subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that the detention order was cryptic and did not contain sufficient reasons to justify the action taken by the tax authorities. The appellant therefore sought interference with the Writ Court’s order. The Division Bench examined the decision and observed that the Writ Court had appropriately recognised the availability of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107. It had also taken note of the mechanism under Section 129 for seeking provisional release of goods. The appellant failed to establish any infirmity in the Writ Court’s decision warranting appellate interference.
Accordingly, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the Writ Court’s order. The appellant was permitted to approach the appellate authority under the CGST Act within ten days from receipt of the judgment. The Court also reiterated that the appellant could submit an appropriate application under Section 129 before the second respondent seeking provisional release of the detained goods. If such an application was filed, the authority was directed to consider it expeditiously. The connected miscellaneous petitions were consequently closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The appellant was the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, proceedings dated 08.05.2023 were impugned. By such proceedings, the goods of the petitioner were detained. The writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to present a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’]. The petitioner was also granted liberty to move an application under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act for provisional release of the goods.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is a cryptic order and does not contain sufficient reasons warranting detention. Consequently, he states that interference is warranted by this Court.
4. On examining the order passed by the Writ Court, it is evident that the Writ Court took note of the fact that the order impugned therein is subject to a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and also noticed that Section 129 of the CGST Act enables the appellant to seek provisional release of goods subject to fulfilment of conditions specified therein. The appellant has completely failed to establish that there is any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by us.
5. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Writ Court. As a corollary, it is open to the appellant to approach the appellate authority under the CGST Act within a period of ten(10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open to the appellant to file an appropriate application under Section 129 of the CGST Act before the second respondent for provisional release. If such application is filed, the same may be considered expeditiously. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
