Case Title | Gopi Chand Batra Traders vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Shekhar B. Saraf |
Citation | 2024 (02) GSTPanacea 34 HC Allahabad WRIT TAX No. – 1632 of 2018 |
Judgment Date | 23-February-2024 |
In a recent court proceeding, Sri Shubham Agrawal, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent, were heard. The instant writ petition pertains to a penalty order issued on March 21, 2018, under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the ‘Act’), as well as an appeal decision dated August 31, 2018, under Section 107 of the Act.
The petition stems from penalty proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, following a search of the petitioner’s business premises. Notably, the petitioner challenges the legality of these penalty proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel referenced a precedent set by a coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, reported in (2022 U.P.T.C. [VOL.112] – 1514). In this case, it was unequivocally established that the mere act of search and seizure of a godown does not warrant penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. This precedent is cited to support the petitioner’s argument that the penalty proceedings initiated against them lack legal basis.
In summary, the court session involved arguments from both the petitioner’s and the State-respondent’s legal representatives regarding penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner’s counsel relied on legal precedent to challenge the legality of these proceedings.
In this legal ruling, the court declares that the proceedings based on the aforementioned circumstances are unjustified. Consequently, the orders dated March 21, 2018, and August 31, 2018, are nullified and revoked.
Furthermore, the court directs the respondents to reimburse the tax and penalty amount deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from the present date.
The writ petition submitted by the petitioner is granted in accordance with the terms mentioned above. Consequential reliefs will ensue as a result of this decision.
Moreover, any funds deposited by the petitioner are to be refunded within four weeks from the current date, as per the court’s directive.
In a legal case, a penalty order was issued under Section 129, which was initially affirmed by the first appellate authority. This decision was fortified by citing the precedent set in the Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. case. However, upon review, the court found grounds to nullify both the penalty order and the appellate authority’s ruling. Consequently, the court invalidated the penalty order invoked under Section 129 of the Act, as well as the decision of the first appellate authority. This verdict marks a significant development in the case, indicating a reversal of the earlier judgments and potentially impacting the legal interpretation of similar cases in the future.
Download Pdf:
Gopi Chand Batra Traders
For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law