Shivam Hi Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd Vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:-

A) For issuance of any appropriate writ, order or direction, direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how an Officer of the State Taxes could carry out the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act that too, when he is not the proper Officer under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, for a inter-state transaction, necessarily falling under the ambit of Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, in view of Section 20 of the said Act, the proceedings, if any, could be carried out only under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act and the provisions of Central Goods & Services Tax Act has to mutatis mutandis apply.

B) For issuance of any appropriate writ, order or direction, direction upon the respondents to show cause as to when from the originating State till reaching the State of Jharkhand, the invoices were genuine E-way Bill were available, but only because of the fact that E-way Bill had expired, if at all, would attract the wrath of Section 129 of the Act, 2017 in the absence of any intent to evasion of tax or contravention of provisions of the Act.

C) For issuance of any appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the learned State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 31,52,780/- has been imposed on the ground that E-way Bill had lost its validity without any finding of evasion of tax, which otherwise is also beyond jurisdiction.

D) Consequently, direction be issued to State Respondents that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the Petitioner Company for releasing of trucks, be released in favour of the Petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case lie in very narrow compass. The petitioner is having its manufacturing unit at Chhattisgarh and is engaged in the business of Ferro Alloy and other ancillary products and in furtherance of its business, the petitioner received purchase order from M/S. Tata Steel Ltd. for supply of 500 tons of Ferro Alloys & Ferro Titanium to its plant at Jamshedpur& Kalinga Nagar for the period commencing from 01.08.2020 to 31.05.2021.One consignment forming part of the purchase order was dispatched on 30.01.2021 for Jamshedpur along with necessary documents including E-way Bill on truck bearing CG 04 JD 5295. While the goods were in transit, the truck was intercepted on 04.02.2021 by the Officers of Intelligence Bureau, Ranchi Division and on an allegation that the E-Way Bill had expired on 03.02.2021 itself, Form GST MOV 01 &Form GST MOV 02 were issued. Although, no discrepancy was found, save and except, expiry of E-way Bill in physical verification, however, Form GST MOV 04 was issued for contravention of the provision of the GST Act, 2017. As a natural corollary, the order of detention in Form GST MOV 06 and Show Cause Notice in Form GST MOV 07 were also issued on 08.02.2021 fixing the date of hearing on 17.02.2021. The petitioner executed a bond for an amount of Rs. 31,52,780/- in Form GST MOV 08 for release of goods and vehicle on 15.02.2021 and on such bond being furnished, the truck and goods were released andForm GST MOV 05 was issued imposing tax and penalty in exercise of powers under Section 129(3) of the Act in Form GST MOV 09. On 23.03.2021, the State Tax Officer, Ranchi, proceeded to suo-moto register the truck driver in terms of Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 2017, for payment of tax & penalty and issued Form gst reg 12 dated 23.03.2021 and as a consequence of which on 05.04.2021, Form Gst Drc 07 was issued.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. Another challenge has been made to the jurisdiction of State Taxes Officer on the ground that for an inter-state transaction falling within the purview of Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the State Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to carry out the proceedings under Section of 129 of the Act. Although, the proceeding has been initiated against the truck driver, but since the truck driver is not registered as a dealer and the Bank Guarantee was furnished by the company, hence, the company has chosen to file the present writ petition being an aggrieved party. Although, attempt to file an appeal was made, but because of technical difficulties, online appeal was not filed and the writ petition was preferred.

4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II has filed counter affidavit inter-alia challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, as also on merits and has contended that the efficacious remedy of appeal is available to assessee, since the dispute pertains to questions of fact, the Hon’ble Court may not entertain the writ petition and relegate the petitioner to prefer an appeal. Since, the statement was made by the petitioner that it was having technical difficulty in filing the appeal and since, the proceedings were against the truck driver, this Court had issued notice to GSTN by impleading GSTN as Respondent No. 5 and pursuant whereto, GSTN has also filed its affidavit, however, the GSTN has stated in its counter that GSTN is a company entrusted with the responsibility of developing and maintaining the GST portal under the guidance and control of Department of Revenue, Government of India and nothing much could be elaborated on the issue.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the series of events, as also, taking into consideration that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of JGST Act, we therefore, grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST mov 09. On his approaching, the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Ranchi, Division Ranchi shall provide the GSTIN number so that the petitioner can prefer an appeal online. In case the appeal is not accepted online for any technical reasons, he would be at liberty to prefer an appeal manually before the appellate authority. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of facts & law and the grounds available to it in the appeal which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

6. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction and observation. Let it made be clear that this Hon’ble Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the parties.