Kerala High Court Declines to Interfere in Ongoing Section 129 CGST Proceedings, Affirms Alternative Remedies

Kerala High Court has delivered a judgment addressing the scope of judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of ongoing proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The case arose when a logistics provider’s vehicle was intercepted during transit due to a discrepancy between the vehicle number on the E-way bill and the actual vehicle used for transportation. This led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, with the issuance of a show cause notice in Form MOV-06 and MOV-07.

The petitioner sought multiple reliefs, including quashing the detention order and show cause notice, declaring the detention illegal, and directing the release of consignments. The primary contention was that the discrepancy in the vehicle number was a clerical error and did not warrant penal action. The petitioner urged the Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction to intervene at this stage.

After considering submissions from both sides, the Court observed that the proceedings under Section 129 were still ongoing before the competent authorities. The Court emphasized that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the nature of the discrepancy and the alleged clerical error were matters to be adjudicated by the statutory authorities in the first instance. The Court found no justifiable reason to interfere at this preliminary stage, especially when the statutory process was yet to be completed.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be invoked in such circumstances, reiterating the principle that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted when alternative statutory remedies are available and the matter is sub judice before the appropriate authorities. The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified that this dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner’s right to pursue remedies under the law. Importantly, the Court noted that if the authorities fail to adhere to the timelines prescribed under Section 129 of the CGST Act, read with the relevant GST circular, the petitioner would be entitled to approach the Court for appropriate relief.

This decision reinforces the judicial approach of non-interference in ongoing statutory proceedings and underscores the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.