Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 06.03.2019 of the respondent No.2 in MOV-07 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the penalty of ₹ 1,71,360/-.

3. The petitioner is the dealer and supplier of essential oils, perfumery compounds and aromatic chemicals having establishments at Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District and also at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, as contended.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the purchase order of M/s. Wipro Enterprises [P] Limited, for supply of Cinnamon leaf oil, Citronellol oil and Palmorosa oil of various quantities totally valued at ₹ 4,76,000/-, the goods were transported after generating invoice. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has intercepted with the goods vehicle at the suburb of Mysore and proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007 [‘Act’ for short] on the ground that consignment even though was sent from Kundapura to Mysore, the E-way bill was showing the place of delivery as Bengaluru and since the goods were intercepted at Mysore, the respondent No.2 recorded that the movement of the goods from Bengaluru to Mysore was without E-way bill.

The petitioner, requested the respondents to release the seized goods and tried to explain that there was no deliberate mistake in respect of place of the delivery and the error was in GSTN and not on the part of the petitioner. However, rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner, order has been passed by the respondent under Section 129 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition.  

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the conduct of the respondent No.2 in initiating the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained. Hence, seeks for setting aside the order and to issue a direction to the respondents to refund the penalty amount of ₹ 1,71,360/- paid pursuant to the orders impugned.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the order impugned submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties ad perusing the material on record it is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the penalty determined by the respondents and the goods were released to the petitioner. If that being the position, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act for redressal of his grievance as the contentions raised by the petitioner revolves around the factual aspects of the case.

8. In such circumstances, there is no other option for this Court except to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as aforesaid. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law without objecting to the aspect of limitation.  

With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.