M/S Maa Tara Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137772 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3857 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Tara Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State- respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 4.1.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 (F.Y. 2024-25) as well as the detention order dated 22.5.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the normal course of business the petitioner placed an order for supply of M.S. Scrape to M/s Maa Sharda Enterprises. He submits that the goods were intercepted during its onward journey from West Bengal to Mughalsarai, UP and at the time of detention, all documents i.e. e- tax invoice, builty and e-way bill were produced but the goods were detained and seized on the ground of misclassification of goods.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that penalty cannot be imposed on the ground of misclassification of goods as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:109827-DB.
Per contra, learned counsel supports the impugned orders.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
It is not in dispute that in the present proceeding the penalty has been imposed only on the basis of alleged misclassification of the goods. It is also not in dispute that there is no discrepancy with regard to quality and quantity of the goods in question. Further the record reveals that e-tax invoice, e-way bill and builty were accompanying with the goods in question at the time of detention / seizure.
This Court in the case of M/s Tirupati Agro Commodities (supra) has categorically held that the penalty under Section 129 of UP GST Act cannot be imposed on mere speculation of undervaluation.
In view of above, the impugned orders dated 4.1.2025 and 22.5.2024 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.