GST: HC Orders Petitioner to Seek Alternative Remedies for Vehicle Detention

Jharkhand High Court Judges Deepak Roshan and Aparesh Kumar Singh directed petitioner Shivam HiTech Steels Pvt. Ltd to search all available options. Its manufacturing facility is located in Chhattisgarh and it makes ferroalloys and other ancillary products. For the purpose of furthering its business, the petitioner received a purchase order from Tata Steel Limited.

Accordingly, the assessee filed a writ petition on the basis that there had been no tax evasion or violation of Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act.

The State Taxes Officer’s jurisdiction has been challenged based on the premise that under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Tax Officer does not have jurisdiction to carry out proceedings relating to interstate transactions that fall within the scope of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

As part of his counter-affidavit, P A S Pati challenged both the maintainability of the writ petition and its merits and argued that the assessee had an efficacious appeal remedy. Due to the factual nature of the dispute, the Hon’ble Court may not entertain the writ petition but may leave the petitioner with the option of appealing.

Read Also: Delhi HC to Sort Out GST Issues Regarding Insolvency Law

The petitioner stated it was experiencing technical difficulties in filing the appeal, so the Court notified GSTN by impleading GSTN since this case was against the truck driver. A counter-affidavit was also filed by GSTN, but the GSTN claims it is a company under the guidance and control of the Department of Revenue associated with the development and maintenance of the GST portal.

Accordingly, the Division Bench disposed of the petition without going into the merits since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act.