respect to Section 129(3)
|
Case Title |
Kaveri Traders vs State of Kerala and Ors |
|
Court |
Kerala High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas |
|
Citation |
2022 (2) GSTPanacea 273 HC Kerala WP(C) NO. 3194 OF 2022 |
|
Judgement Date |
01-February-2022 |
|
Council for Petitioner |
Mr. Harisankar V Menon |
|
Council for Respondent |
Mr. M.M Jasmin |
|
In Favor Of |
Respondent |
|
Section |
Section 129 and 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 |
The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, held that, this Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enter into issues that falls within the realm of disputed facts and therefore dismisses this petition.
Facts of the Case
Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner had transported certain quantities of dry arecanuts, purchased from unregistered persons, supported by e- way bills. While the goods were being transported it was intercepted on 10.01.2022 at 7.50 p.m., and after verification, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts and detained the goods alleging ‘excess quantity‘. The Petitioner stated that the quantity of goods that were being transported by the petitioner tallied with the e-way bills and that if a proper ascertainment of the weight of the load is carried out, it would reveal that there was no incongruity in the quantity of goods transported and the e-way bills.
The State Tax Officer rejected the objections and issued an order under Section 129(3) in Form GST MOV 09. In arriving at a conclusion that, petitioner is liable to pay the amount stipulated therein, the State Tax Officer has arrived at a conclusion that, there is excess quantity of goods in the vehicle than the quantity declared in the 4 e-way bills. Therefore, this writ petition.
respect to Section 129(3)
Court Held
The Court Held that it can be noticed that the 2nd respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the quantity of the load that was being carried did not tally with the quantity mentioned in the e-way bills. Though petitioner disputes the said conclusion, correctness or otherwise of the said conclusion falls within the realm of disputed facts. It is trite law that this Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enter into issues that falls within the realm of disputed facts. Further, petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 and hence it will not be subjected to any prejudice also. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.
respect to Section 129(3)
Analysis of the Judgement
From the above case we can conclude that Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enter into issues that falls within the realm of disputed facts with respect to an order passed by the GST Authorities under Section 129 of The CGST Act,2017.
Download Pdf:
For Reference Visit: