M/S Technoplast Packaging Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Technoplast Packaging Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner was aggrieved by a notice and a seizure order dated October 3, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction-2, (Mobile Squad), Bareilly. The record indicated that the order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had not yet been passed by the concerned authority. The writ petition sought relief against this inaction.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had not been passed by the concerned authority. Consequently, the Court directed the authority to pass an order under the said provision expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. This direction was to be given after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court found that the statutory process under Section 129(3) had not been completed, and therefore, the appropriate course of action was to direct its completion in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must act diligently and within reasonable timeframes, and courts will intervene to direct such action when there is undue delay, ensuring adherence to legal provisions and principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the concerned authority has failed to pass an order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a reasonable time, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the inaction of the respondent authority in passing an order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017, despite the issuance of a notice and seizure order, constitutes a failure to adhere to the statutory timelines and principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious passing of the order. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent State.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3692 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the notice and the seizure order dated October 3, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction-2, (Mobile Squad), Bareilly/respondent No.2. 3. It is evident from the record that the order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has not been passed by the authority concerned till date.
Accordingly, we direct the authority concerned to pass an order under the aforesaid provision in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from date after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 11, 2025 Kuldeep Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parth Goswami, Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) M/S Technoplast Packaging Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s) KULDEEP SINGH 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.