Heard Sri Y.C. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hema Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, and perused the impugned order dated 19.10.2020.

2. The Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-16 South Zone, Bangalore by the impugned order has passed orders for confiscation of ‘Goods’ and ‘Conveyance’ under Section 130 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, ‘KGST Act’) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, ‘CGST Act’) as well as Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, ‘IGST Act’). The said officer has concluded that there is contravention of Sub-Sections (i) and (v) of the provisions of Section 130(1) of the KGST Act/CGST Act.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s transaction viz., purchase of arecanut from Kaduru, Chikkamagaluru District and transfer thereof to the recipient in Delhi is an inter-state transaction and in terms of Section 10 of the IGST Act, the State of Delhi would be the authority to collect taxes. The failure to produce e-way bill by the driver at the time of interception of the vehicle on Huliyal – Shira road enroute to Delhi is a bona fide error. In any event, the officer by the impugned order could not have levied tax, penalty or fine on the market value of the property.

4. Sri N.Hema Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the time within such alternative remedy could be availed has not expired. On the question whether an appeal could lie under Section 107 of the CGST Act, a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3974/2019 has affirmed that indeed such remedy would be available.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the enunciation by the Division Bench in W.A.No.3974/2019, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. At this point of time, Sri Hema Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the authorities have not taken any precipitous action because the appeal time has not lapsed. If this be so, it would be just and reasonable to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, while directing the authorities not to take precipitous action in the limitation period within which appropriate appeal could be filed by the petitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.