M/S New Three Star Metal Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax Sector-1 Mobile Squad Jp Nagar Amroha Uttar Pradesh And Another
Held
The Court held that it would not interfere at the preliminary stage of the writ petition, as the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Court reasoned that seizure matters are to be dealt with expeditiously and that the writ forum is not always the appropriate forum for such proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally direct parties to avail statutory remedies before approaching the writ jurisdiction, especially when such remedies are adequate and can ensure expeditious disposal. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within one week. The appeal is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of filing.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s New Three Star Metal Traders, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017. The petition was heard by the Allahabad High Court. The revenue was represented by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Mobile Squad, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, and another respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court directly challenging the GST proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017, when a statutory remedy of appeal is available? (Question of law) The petitioner contended for interference by the High Court. The revenue argued that a statutory remedy of appeal exists and should be availed by the petitioner. The revenue did not rely on any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents in the provided text, but rather on the existence of the statutory appeal mechanism.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4059 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrwal, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
At present, challenge has been raised to the proceedings under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017. 3. To the extent, the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order, we do not find any good ground to offer any interference at this preliminary stage. The seizure matter is to be dealt with expeditiously. Adequate statutory remedy of appeal is available under the statute. We do not find the writ forum to be fit to deal with seizure proceedings in all circumstances.
Accordingly, without entering into the merits, the present writ petition is disposed of with the observation, subject to the petitioner availing statutory remedy of appeal within a period of one week from today, the same may be dealt with and decided, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. October 6, 2026 Abhilash Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal C
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.