Shri Sai Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is to be treated as the owner of the goods because the goods were detained along with a proper e-invoice and e-way bill. This finding is supported by a catena of judgments from co-ordinate Benches of the High Court. Consequently, the Court found that the release of goods should be made under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, not Section 129(1)(b). The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on November 22, 2023, which quantified the penalty under Section 129(1)(b), was deemed bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 22, 2023, and directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-compute the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) within seven days. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for other issues raised in the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Sai Enterprises, is aggrieved by a detention order dated November 9, 2023, and a penalty order dated November 22, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 6 (Mobile Squad-9), Agra. The challenge pertains to the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the goods were detained with a proper e-invoice and e-way bill, and as the owner of the goods, Clause 6 of Circular No./GST-2018-19/1819078/36/Commercial Tax dated December 31, 2018, should apply. The petitioner is limiting the challenge to specific prayers related to the penalty.
Key Issues
1. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is valid when the goods were detained with a proper e-invoice and e-way bill, and the petitioner is the owner of the goods? The petitioner argued that the goods were not mis-declared and the invoice was in order, relying on the Kerala High Court judgment in N.V.K. Mohammed Sulthan Rawther and Sons vs. Union of India. The petitioner further contended that Clause 6 of Circular No./GST-2018-19/1819078/36/Commercial Tax dated December 31, 2018, should apply as they are the owners of the goods. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(1)(a), Section 129(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227376-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1364 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shri Sai Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned detention order dated November 9, 2023 and the order dated November, 22, 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 6 (Mobile Squad-9), 9, Agra under section 129 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') with regard to the penalty imposed under not mis-declared and the invoice fil
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.