The Division Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s GMT Industries Ltd to seek available alternative remedies for refund of deposit amount in lieu of seizure of truck.
The allegation that the documents produced by the driver were prima facie defective and the statement of the truck driver was recorded in Form GST MOV-01 which were issued in the name of truck driver. Order of detention was purportedly issued in Form GST MOV-06 which was never received and a Show Cause Notice in Form GST MOV-07 was also issued.
The petitioner company had claimed ownership of the goods and explained that the detention of the truck was wrong.
The petitioner company had made the payment of tax and penalty “under protest” informing about the entire incident to the Commissioner and requested for release of the vehicle.
However, the State Tax Officer proceeded to create a temporary GST registration number for the driver at his own accord as he was unable to upload GST DRC-07 and uploaded the same therein.On the ground of there being no evasion of tax and no contravention of Section 129(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred the writ petition.
Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A.-I filed a counter affidavit challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, as also on merits and has contended that the efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the assessee.
Taking into consideration that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, the bench of the Jharkhand High Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. The court also refused to hear the matter on merits.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
