Facts of the Case

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an order dated 28 June 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act.

Through the writ petition, the petitioners sought issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28 June 2022.

The petitioners also sought issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to forthwith release vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 11 GB 2278 along with the goods.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act was maintainable before the High Court when a statutory appellate remedy was available.
  2. Whether the petitioners could directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing the impugned order dated 28 June 2022 instead of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act.
  3. Whether a direction could be issued for immediate release of vehicle No. RJ 11 GB 2278 along with the goods in the writ proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments / Relief Sought

The petitioners challenged the order dated 28 June 2022 passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act.

The petitioners specifically prayed for:

  1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 28 June 2022 by issuance of a writ of certiorari.
  2. A direction in the nature of mandamus requiring Respondent No. 3 to release vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 11 GB 2278 along with the goods forthwith.

The court order does not record any further detailed substantive arguments advanced by the petitioners on the merits of the impugned action.

Respondent’s Arguments

The court order does not separately record detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. However, the High Court considered the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act against the impugned order.

Court Order / Findings

The Allahabad High Court observed that against the impugned order, the petitioners had a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act.

In view of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Significantly, the Court expressly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ case.

The writ petition was dismissed while leaving it open to the petitioners to file an appeal against the impugned order.

Important Clarification

The dismissal of the writ petition was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act.

The High Court did not adjudicate or express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ challenge to the order passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act.

Therefore, the order should not be understood as an affirmation of the impugned detention-related order on merits. The petitioners remained free to challenge the impugned order by filing the statutory appeal available under Section 107.

2. Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others

The Supreme Court explained the recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Writ jurisdiction may still be exercised in appropriate cases involving enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, orders passed wholly without jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of an enactment.

Relevance: The decision clarifies that the rule of alternative remedy is a rule governing judicial discretion, subject to established exceptions.

3. Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

The Supreme Court comprehensively summarized the principles governing maintainability of writ petitions where an alternative statutory remedy exists. It reiterated that High Courts ordinarily should not entertain writ petitions where an effective alternative remedy is available, while preserving jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.

Relevance: The ruling provides the broader legal framework for deciding whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised in GST disputes despite availability of an appellate remedy.

4. State of H.P. and Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Another

The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction, subject to exceptional circumstances warranting direct interference by the High Court.

Relevance: The case supports the general principle that statutory appeal mechanisms should ordinarily be pursued before seeking extraordinary constitutional remedies.

Conclusion

In M/s Migson Auto Mobiles and Another vs State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 28 June 2022 passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. The Court held that the petitioners had an available remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act. Importantly, the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ case and expressly left it open to them to file an appeal against the impugned order.


Sections Involved

  • Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act – Relating to detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit in the circumstances covered by the provision.
  • Section 20 of the IGST Act – Providing for application of specified provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act to integrated tax matters.
  • Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act – Statutory remedy of appeal against an appealable order or decision passed under the GST law.

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783668964_3055.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.