2023 (5) TMI 965 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - Territorial Jurisdiction - Interstate sale or local sale - it is the grievance of the petitioner, neither the U.P. State authorities have any jurisdiction to detain and seize the goods nor that power has been exercised validly - HELD THAT:- Having perused the record, in the context of a fiscal statute where statutory remedy of appeal is available and issue of jurisdiction arises not by way of inherent and complete lack of jurisdiction but because of facts that the petitioner alleges exist, as are doubted by the revenue authority, we do not find it an appropriate case to offer interference at this primary stage.

Once statutory remedy of appeal is provided, it does not become a matter of choice with the assessee to approach either the appellate authority or the High Court in its exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Since in the present case, facts are in dispute, as would require consideration amongst other as to existence or otherwise of the consigner/dealer, genuineness of the transaction of insterstate trade, we would not like to hasten to a conclusion of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Thus, thus is not a fit case to exercise our inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution. More efficacious and speedier remedy may be available under the statute itself, in the facts of the case.

Petition dismissed.