Hdb Financial Services Limited vs. State Of Up And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, HDB Financial Services Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the respondents under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/-. The petitioner claimed that the goods, a Pokland Machine, were being moved to its parking yard in Varanasi because the borrower had defaulted on payments as per an arbitration award. The vehicle and goods were detained, and the petitioner's claim of ownership, based on the award and vehicle hypothecation, was rejected. The writ petition was filed on 21.10.2024.
Held
The Court held that the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the transfer of goods to its parking yard required investigation. The conduct of the petitioner, as projected by the respondents and not denied, indicated a lack of proactive steps to claim ownership despite having a 15-day window. The subsequent casual handling of the matter, including the late filing of the writ petition and the nature of the communication, led the Court to believe that the assertions made in the petition could not be taken at face value. Consequently, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, with the observation that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be utilized to overcome the delay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act is valid when the vehicle was allegedly moving goods to the petitioner's parking yard, thus not requiring an e-way bill? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the vehicle was only transporting goods to its parking yard, an e-way bill was not necessary, and therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was unjustified. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner's plea regarding ownership was an afterthought. The vehicle was detained on 02.07.2024, and the impugned order was passed on 18.07.2024, yet no claim of ownership was made during this period. Furthermore, a cursory email was sent on 06.09.2024, and the writ petition was filed much later on 21.10.2024. The respondents also submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked to maintain the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14152-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2098 of 2024 Petitioner :- HDB Financial Services Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal, S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the respondents under Section 129(3) of the GST Act imposing a penalty of Rs. 5, 40,000/-.
Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner claims that the goods in question, were being moved by the petitioner to its parking yard at Varanasi as the borrower, had failed to make payment in terms of the arbitration award, however, the vehicle carrying the goods and the goods were detained and penalty imposed where after, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner seeking ownership of the goods in question, based on passing of the award and hypothecation of vehicle, was rejected by the respondents. The writ petition was filed on 21.10.2024 and has remained pending and has come up before the Court for the first time on 26.11.2024, when none appeared, whereafter the matter has come up today.
Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner seeking to question the validity of the order passed on account of the fact that the vehicle was moving the goods to its parking yard only and, therefore, there was no necessity to carry e-way bill and consequently, passing of the order impugned under Section 129(3) of the Act, was not justified.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised appears to be an afterthought inasmuch as the vehicle was detained on 02.07.2024 and the order impugned was passed on 18.07.2024, in between, no plea seeking ownership of the goods was raised by the petitioner. Whereafter also, despite being aware of the passing of the order dated 18.07.2024, a cursory email titling the same as GST appeal was sent on 06.09.2024 and, as noticed, the petition has been filed on 21.10.2024. 5. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal against the order impugned and as the matter remained pending before this Court, with the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal can still be maintained.
We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the transfer of the goods, a Pokland Machine, to its parking yard at Varanasi, needs investigation inasmuch as the conduct as projected by counsel for the respondents and which is not denied, despite the fact that petitioner had full 15 days to claim the ownership of the goods, no steps were taken and thereafter also the matter has been dealt with casually, the assertions made in the petition cannot be taken at face value.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal with the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as indicated by counsel for the respondents. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Rajesh/AHA (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.) RAJESH KUMAR 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.