M/S Vsay Farmers PVT. LTD. Thru. Director Mr. Rohit Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. And Another
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 969 of 2025 M/S Vsay Farmers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Mr. Rohit Agrawal …..Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and another …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Awasthi, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. Central GST Act, 2017. 4. The authorities have imposed the penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act as they found that the petitioner (consignor) was not in existence.
2 WTAX No. - 969 of 2025
Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, in which it was categorically stated that the petitioner was the owner of the goods and the same were being sent by him to a third person. He further submits that a notice for cancellation of registration had been issued upon the petitioner. The notice was issued subsequent to the detention for cancellation of the registration. This proceeding has subsequently been dropped by the order dated 22.09.2025. 5. In light of the same, he submits that the entire proceeding to show that the petitioner was not in existence, was mala fide and was not based on any cogent evidence. In light of the same, he submits that since the goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, serial No.6 of the Circular No.76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 would apply. The relevant circular is provided here-in-below:-
Who will be considered as the ‘owner of the goods for the purposes of section 129(1) of the CGST Act? It is hereby clarified that if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanying
the consignment of goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed to be the owner. If the invoice or any other
specified document
is not accompanying
the consignment of goods, then in such cases, the proper officer should determine who should be declared as the owner of the goods.
3 WTAX No. - 969 of 2025
In light of the above Circular and in light of the fact that the proceeding for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner was dropped, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the authority was not in accordance with law and against the principles and establishment of law.
Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the authorities are directed to pass an order under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act, 2017 within a period of two weeks from date after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
It is further directed that in the event the goods of the petitioner have been sold (as informed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent), the penalty that is imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act, 2017 should be deducted and the balance should be refunded to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) November 26, 2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.