Statutory Appeal Route Upheld in GST Detention Case

Centax Editorial Board

March 31, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Roshan Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax (2026) 40 Centax 307 (S.C.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
S/Shri Vinay Shraff, Shashank Chamoli, Dev Agarwal, Advs. & Ravi Bharuka, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Ms Debarati Sadhu, Shri Dhruv Bhalla, Advocates & Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the action of the department in relation to the detention of goods and conveyance in transit and the consequential proceedings initiated under section 74, read with sections 107 and 129 of the CGST Act. It was contended that the petitioner had produced all documents available to substantiate the movement of goods; however, the Fastag portal data, which could establish the genuineness of the transaction, was not accessible to the petitioner, and the department had failed to provide necessary assistance in this regard. The petitioner further relied upon statements made by the supplier during cross-examination, which, according to the petitioner, were not duly considered in the proceedings. The High Court, however, declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, observing that the appellate authority would be in a better position to examine the factual aspects and access relevant records, including Fastag data. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority as already directed by the High Court. The Court granted six weeks to file such an appeal and clarified that it shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made while rejecting the writ petition. It was further directed that, if filed within the stipulated time, the appeal shall be taken up expeditiously and decided in accordance with law. The Court also observed that it would be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the special leave petition was disposed of.