Trimurti Freshner And Fragrances vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Trimurti Freshner and Fragrances and Trimurti Freshner and Flavours, filed writ petitions challenging orders dated May 25, 2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The orders imposed penalties under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The goods were being transported and allegedly transferred to a different vehicle. The intercepting authority found discrepancies in the locations of the two vehicles at the time of the alleged transfer, leading to the imposition of penalty. The petitioner contended that the authority's conclusion was baseless and based on a wrong assumption regarding the timing of e-way bill generation.
Held
The Court held that the submissions made by the petitioner primarily touched upon the merits of the order passed by the authority and did not challenge the jurisdiction of the authority to pass the order. The Court found that the petitioner's arguments were focused on factual aspects, specifically questioning the basis of the authority's findings regarding the timing and location of the vehicle transfer. The Court noted that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act was available to the petitioner to address these factual disputes. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it would involve bypassing the available appellate mechanism. The Court explicitly stated that its non-interference would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case or the pleas raised by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide a matter involving disputed factual aspects, or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the authority's conclusion that the vehicle was at a different place at the time of goods transfer was baseless and based on a wrong assumption regarding the timing of e-way bill generation. They contended that the impugned order deserved to be set aside based on these factual inaccuracies. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that the plea raised by the petitioner was entirely factual. They contended that such disputed facts could be effectively examined by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, and therefore, the writ petition, which requires examination of disputed facts, deserved dismissal.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 107, Section 129(3), Section 129(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94074-DB Chief Justice's Court (1) Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2669 of 2025 Petitioner :- Trimurti Freshner and Fragrances Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla, Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) With (2) Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2671 of 2025 Petitioner :- Trimurti Freshner and Flavours Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla, Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the orders dated 25.05.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(3) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act'), whereby the petitioner has been visited with penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act.
The goods in question were being supplied by the petitioner to buyer at Muzaffarpur, Bihar through vehicle no. UP78-JT8697 along with e-way bill and builty. It is claimed that the goods in question were transferred to the vehicle bearing no. UP78-JN1518 in Bhelsar Rudauli near Ayodhya and, consequently, e-way bill was updated. The vehicle in question was intercepted on 16.05.2025 by respondent no. 2 at around 1.35 PM. The physical verification of the goods was conducted wherein no discrepancy was found, however, the authority, after examining the tracking of the two vehicles/e-way bills, came to the conclusion that plea raised was not sustainable as, at the point of time when the goods are claimed to have been transferred from one vehicle to another, both the vehicles were at difference locations and, consequently, imposed the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions seeking to question the finding recorded by the authority based on the material produced along with the writ petition and by way of the submissions, inter alia, on the ground that the entire basis of the respondents in concluding that the vehicle was at a different place at the time of transfer of the goods is baseless and/or based on wrong assumption, i.e., the timing of the generation of the e-way bill on account of such transfer of goods and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plea, sought to be raised by the petitioner, is totally factual and the said aspect can very well be raised by filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act and the writ petition, for the said purpose, under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein disputed facts needs to be examined, deserves dismissal.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains in seeking to convince the Court pertaining to the factual aspect of the matter that the ground, indicated by the authority, while passing the order impugned, was not available, however, the said submissions only touch the merits of the order passed and none of the submissions made touches the juri iction of the authority in passing the order impugned.
In view of above, we do not find any reason to exercise juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassing the remedy of appeal, as available to the petitioner.
Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy in accordance with law.
Non interference by this Court shall not be construed as expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the case/plea raised by the petitioner. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PUNEET SRIVASTAVA 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.