Summary
The Court held that the taxpayer should pursue the statutory GST appeal against detention and collection of tax and penalty. An alternative remedy does not absolutely bar Article 226 relief, but none of the recognised exceptions was established here. Notice had been served on the person in charge of the vehicle, and disputed factual issues belonged before the appellate authority. The revenue’s appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order set aside and the writ petition dismissed, leaving the taxpayer’s statutory remedies open without deciding the tax dispute on merits.
Issues
- Whether the High Court should entertain a GST detention challenge despite an available statutory appeal and absence of exceptional grounds.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe alternative-remedy rule permitted exceptional intervention, but no qualifying circumstance justified entertaining this writ petition. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017The available statutory appellate remedy was the appropriate route for factual examination of the taxpayer’s grievance. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- An alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Exceptional circumstances include breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the validity of a statute or delegated legislation. (¶ 11)
- None of these exceptions was established. Service of notice on the person in charge of the conveyance defeated the asserted natural-justice ground, and the factual assessment should have been undertaken by the appellate authority. (¶ 12)
- The High Court’s order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed. The taxpayer remained free to pursue appropriate remedies under Section 107; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying grievance. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Revenue’s appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and writ petition dismissed, with statutory remedies under Section 107 left open.