M/S Mayuri Enterprises vs. State Of Up And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mayuri Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the detention of its goods and vehicle and subsequent orders passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner restricted its prayers to the proceedings under Section 129. The core dispute revolves around whether the goods should be released under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended it is the owner of the goods and thus entitled to release under Section 129(1)(a), while the authorities calculated the demand under Section 129(1)(b) via an order dated March 20, 2024. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the Court in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others.
Held
The Court held that the facts and issues in the present writ petition were similar to those in the case of M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the Court found no reason to deviate from the view taken in that precedent. The Court directed that the goods should be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. The order passed by the authorities dated March 20, 2024, was quashed and set aside. The authorities were instructed to carry out the release exercise in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had not pressed other prayers, which could be pursued before the appropriate forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the goods detained by the respondent authorities should be released under Section 129(1)(a) or Section 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the petitioner claims ownership of the goods. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as the owner of the goods, the release should be governed by Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. They cited the judgment in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others (2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB)) as being squarely applicable to their case. Respondent's contention: The counsel for the respondent authorities supported the actions taken by the authorities, asserting that they were legally correct. The judgment does not record any specific arguments beyond this general support.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 129(1)(a), Section 129(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93967-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 523 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Mayuri Enterprises Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the actions of the respondent authorities with regard to detention of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner as well as subsequent orders passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "CGST Act").
At the outset, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has restricted the prayers made in the writ petition to the proceeding initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
The main issue in this writ petition is whether the goods may be released by the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the goods and, therefore, goods are to be released as per Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act while the authorities have made the calculation under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act by an order dated March 20, 2024. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court
in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB).
Counsel for the respondent authorities has supported the actions of the authorities and stated that the actions taken by the authorities were correct in law.
On a bare perusal of the record and the judgment cited above, we find that the facts and issue in the present writ petition are quite similar to one in M/s Halder Enterprises (supra). In light of the same, we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
Accordingly, the order passed by the authorities dated March 20, 2024 is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks from today.
As the petitioner has not pressed for the other prayers in the writ petition, the same may be pursued by it before the appropriate forum.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Shahroz (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) SHAHROJ ALAM 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.