M/S Purita Water Solutions PVT. vs. State Of Up, And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Purita Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 14, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-I, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged an order dated May 20, 2025, rejecting the provisional release of goods. The petitioner's counsel argued that the show cause notice and the impugned order were both dated May 14, 2025, and the order was passed ex parte without the petitioner being heard. The petitioner offered to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 12.6 lacs, which was the penalty levied under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act.
Held
The Court held that the ex parte order dated May 14, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was unsustainable. The Court found that the show cause notice and the impugned order were issued on the same date, and the order was passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity to file objections or receive a personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. Furthermore, in light of the petitioner's willingness to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 12.6 lacs, representing the penalty levied under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, the Court directed the concerned authority to release the goods and the vehicle provisionally within 7 days of the furnishing of the bank guarantee. The Court explicitly stated that nothing remained in the writ petition after these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is sustainable when the show cause notice and the order bear the same date, and no opportunity for reply or personal hearing was granted to the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the simultaneous issuance of the show cause notice and the impugned order, without providing an opportunity to file a reply or attend a personal hearing, rendered the order illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the procedural impropriety. However, the court considered the petitioner's willingness to furnish a bank guarantee for the disputed amount.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 129(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2581 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
The present writ petition assails an order dated May 14, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-I, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar, being the respondent No.2 herein, under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as also an order dated May 20, 2025 rejecting the provisional release of the goods.
Upon perusal of the documents and after hearing Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Raghav Dev Garg, Yashvi Agarwal and Mr. Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we find that the show cause notice dated May 14, 2025 and the impugned order are of the same date. In effect, it appears that the show cause notice was issued on May 14, 2025 and the ex parte order was passed in the absence of anyone on behalf of the petitioner.
In light of the above, for the ends of justice, the impugned order dated May 14, 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of filing an objection/reply and thereafter personal hearing to the petitioner before passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Counsel on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is willing to put a bank guarantee of Rs.12.6 lacs which is the impugned penalty levied under Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act. In light of the same, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghav Dev Garg, Yashvi Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Purita Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and another .....Respondent(s)
upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.12.6 lacs from a Nationalised Bank as per the satisfaction of the officer concerned, the goods and the vehicle should be released provisionally within a period of 7 days from the date of furnishing of the bank guarantee.
The instructions received by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have been handed over to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner so that he can deal with the same.
In light of the directions issued, nothing remains in this writ petition and the same is disposed of accordingly. September 12, 2025 Rakesh WTAX No. 2581 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) RAKESH MEHTA 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.