Writ Remedy vs. Statutory Appeal in Goods Detention (FASTag Data Access)

Facts of the Case

The Detention: Goods and the conveyance were detained in transit under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The Department raised a demand for tax and penalty, alleging irregularities in the movement of goods.
The Assessee’s Defense: The assessee contended they had provided all available documents but could not access FASTag Portal details (electronic toll records) to prove the vehicle’s movement. They argued the Department should have cooperated by providing this third-party data.
The Procedural Issue: The assessee also raised factual disputes regarding the cross-examination of the supplier and other evidentiary statements.
High Court Ruling: The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226, directing the appellant to file a statutory appeal under Section 107. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority is the proper forum to appreciate a “factual position,” as it has the power to call for records and specifically direct its office to access the FASTag Portal.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view and disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP):

Exhausting Alternate Remedy: The Court reiterated that where a statutory appellate mechanism exists (Section 107), taxpayers must pursue it first, especially when the case turns on disputed questions of fact.
Appellate Authority’s Powers: The Appellate Authority has wider powers than a Writ Court to examine evidence, including electronic records like FASTag data and witness statements.
Final Directive: The petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority with an appropriate appeal as per the High Court’s earlier order.

Key Takeaways for Businesses

FASTag as Evidence: Electronic records like FASTag and RFID data are increasingly vital in proving “genuine movement” in Section 129 cases. If you cannot access this data, you must formally request the Appellate Authority to summon it.
Writ vs. Appeal: Writ petitions are generally not maintainable for factual disputes (e.g., “Where was the truck at 2 PM?”). They are reserved for jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
Statutory Pre-deposit: Filing an appeal under Section 107 requires a mandatory pre-deposit (usually 10% of the disputed tax), which cannot be bypassed by filing a writ unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Evidence Management: Ensure that transporter statements and cross-examination records are properly brought onto the appellate record, as these are “questions of fact” that the High Court or Supreme Court will likely not re-examine.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Roshan Sharma

Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax^*

J.B. PARDIWALA and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

SLP to Appeal (C) No. 31296 of 2025^†

MARCH 9, 2026

Vinay Shraff, Shashank Chamoli, Dev Agarwal, Advs. and Ravi Bharuka, AOR for the Petitioner. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR, Ms. Debarati Sadhu and Dhruv Bhalla, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The High Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, observed in Paras 8 and 9 respectively as under:-

“8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with the connected application (IA.No. CAN 1 of 2025) with a direction to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgment and order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to limitation and subject to compliance of other conditions upon the appellant. The appellate authority shall consider all grounds that may be canvassed by the appellant and the documents submitted by them and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant, pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law.

9. The appellant will be entitled to make a specific request to the appellate authority with regard to the Fastag details, which according to the appellant, is a very vital document. This aspect shall be canvassed by the appellant before the appellate authority, which shall be taken note of in accordance with law.”

2. We heard Mr. Vinay Shraff, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Department.

3. We are of the view that the petitioner should go before the Appellate Authority with an appropriate appeal as already directed by the High Court.

4. We grant six weeks’ time to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal against the order-in-original i.e. the final order of assessment.

5. It is needless to clarify that the appeal shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced in any manner by the observations made by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order-in-original passed by the Authority.

6. If any appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be taken up for hearing expeditiously and be decided in accordance with law.

7. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions available to him in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid, this Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.