ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bishnu Supply Co. …..Appellant
V/s
State of U.P. and Another …..Respondent
Honble Justice
Shekhar B. Saraf and Manish Kumar Nigam, JJ.
Date : 21/09/2024
Appearance:
Shubham Agrawal for the Petitioner.
C.S.C. for the Respondent.
Issues Involved :-
Case referred/cited :-
Halder Enterprises Versus State of U.P. and others — [2023] 67
S.K. Trading Co And Another Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) and Another — [2023]
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the actions of the respondent authorities with regard to detention of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner as well as subsequent orders passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) read with Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. At the outset, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has restricted the prayers made in the writ petition to the proceeding initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
3. The main issue in this writ petition is whether the goods may be released by the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the goods and, therefore, goods are to be released as per Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act read with IGST Act while the authorities have made the calculation under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act by an order dated September 12, 2024.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB), [2023] 67 (Allahabad). He has further relied on a judgement of this Court passed in Writ Tax No.1464 of 2022 [S/S S.K. Trading Co And Another vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) And Another, decided on March 16, 2024 (Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC:66095)], [2023] 58 (Allahabad), wherein the Court has held that the enhancement of valuation cannot be done under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and the penalty to be levied under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act would have to be on the basis of invoice/eway bill.
6. Counsel for the respondent authorities has supported the actions of the authorities and stated that the actions taken by the authorities were correct in law.
7. On a bare perusal of the record and the judgments cited above, we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act.
8. Accordingly, the order passed by the authorities dated September 12, 2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act within a period of three weeks from today on the basis of valuation as specified in the invoice.
9. As the petitioner has not pressed for the other prayers in the writ petition, the same may be pursued by it before the appropriate forum.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.