Calcutta High Court Upholds Statutory Appeal: Writ Petition Not Maintainable for Disputed Detention Facts
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a writ petition challenging a detention order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act is not maintainable when the core issue involves disputed questions of fact. In such cases, the taxpayer must use the statutory appellate remedy provided by law.
Key Takeaways of the Ruling
- Writ Jurisdiction Barred by Disputed Facts: The court found that the detention order was based on material discrepancies, such as incongruities between the driver’s statement, E-way bill details, and payment particulars, all of which cast doubt on the legitimacy of the goods’ movement. Since resolving these issues requires factual evidence and investigation, a writ petition, which typically addresses only clear questions of law or patent lack of jurisdiction, is inappropriate.
- Alternative Remedy Must Be Used: The court reaffirmed the judicial principle that the proper avenue for the taxpayer to challenge a penalty and confiscation order under Section 129(3) is through the statutory appellate mechanism provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
- Goods Release Option Available: Despite dismissing the writ, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to seek immediate release of the detained goods by following the procedure outlined in Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act (payment of tax and 50% penalty on the value of goods).