M/S Shyam Brick Field vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shyam Brick Field, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 17, 2023, as rectified by an order dated May 6, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2. The proceedings under challenge were initiated under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the UPGST/CGST Act for the financial year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, after search and seizure operations were conducted on their premises, was impermissible. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the same High Court in similar matters.
Held
The Court held that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the cited cases, M/s Vijay Trading Company and M/s PP Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., was correct in law. The Court found that the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the UPGST/CGST Act after search and seizure was impermissible. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings initiated under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner under the appropriate provisions of law available within the Act. The ratio decidendi is that Section 130 proceedings cannot be initiated subsequent to search and seizure operations, implying that such actions should be pursued under different, appropriate sections of the Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, can be initiated after search and seizure operations have been carried out on the petitioner's premises? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the Act following search and seizure was contrary to established legal principles and cited the High Court's decisions in M/s Vijay Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner grade-2 And Another and M/s PP Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another. The respondent State of U.P. and Another did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 130, Section 122
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128922-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2810 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Shyam Brick Field Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
In the present writ petition following prayers have been made by the petitioner:- "I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.1.2023 read with rectified order dated 6.5.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, F.Y. 2022-23, under the provisions of Section 130 read with 122 of the UPGST/CGST (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). II. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned proceedings issued under section 130 of the UPGST/CGST Act. III. Issue any such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue before this Court is as to whether the proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") can be initiated after search and seizure is carried out on the premises of the petitioner. He further submits that this issue is covered by the judgement in the case of M/s Vijay Trading Company vs. 128922-DBAdditional Commissioner grade-2 And Another, Writ Tax No.1278 of 2024 [Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132878] decided on August 20, 2024 and M/s PP Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another, Writ Tax No.1183 of 2024 [Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121612] decided on July 30, 2024 128922-DB of this Court.
We have perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in both the above cases and are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is absolutely correct in law.
In light of the same, the present writ petition succeeds. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 130 read with 122 of the Act are quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under the appropriate provisions of law available in the Act. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Dev (Praveen Kumar Giri J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) DEV PRAKASH 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.