Ajay Traders And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 November, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Traders And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 November, 2025

Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:203390-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT TAX No. - 6329 of 2025   
 
   Ajay Traders And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 3
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Yashonidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue.

2. On oral prayer, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct prayer clause, during the course of the day.

3. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by Respondent No. 2.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to pass the order treating the petitioner No. 1 to be the owner of the goods."

4. Submission is, goods found accompanied with the eway bill and tax invoice clearly disclosing full particulars of the owner of the goods, a registered dealer.In any case, those documents were produced soon after detention.

5. Thus, whatever infringement may have been alleged for reason mentioned in the penalty order, it may have resulted in penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), only. However, the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously computed the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. On that issue, reliance has been placed on Halder Enterprises vs State of U.P., (2023) 13 Centax 144 (All). That petition was allowed on the following terms:

"12. In light of the above, the order passed by the authorities dated October 19, 2023 is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks from today."

6. For reason of similar facts and there have been no other dispute, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this state, let the writ petition be decided with the consent of the parties at the fresh stage.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 is set aside with the direction upon the authorities to determine the quantum of penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Act within a period of three weeks from today.

8. Subject to the petitioners depositing the penalty amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act on the value of the goods as mentioned in the tax invoice, the goods may be released forthwith.

9. If any other dispute survives arising from order imposing penalty, the petitioners may avail their statutory remedies in accordance with law.

10. With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of. Pending application/s, if any, stand disposed of.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) November 15, 2025 Faraz

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court