Sachin Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Taxes Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024WTAX/229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Penalty proceedings under Section 129(3) GST Act after interception of a truck carrying Mentha Oil with an expired e-way bill, allegedly due to a transit blockade. The petitioner deposited 25% penalty in first appeal. The court directed an application to the Assessing Authority for release of goods against security, stayed coercive recovery, and listed for counter affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Interim: no coercive recovery steps till next date; Assessing Authority directed to decide release of seized Mentha Oil on adequate security.

Sachin Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 229 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Sachin Jain

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Taxes Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal,Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty proceedings have been initiated against petitioner under Section 129(3) of the GST Act on account of the fact that at the time when the goods were intercepted on 05.08.2024 at Budaun with was destination of the goods, the e-way bill has already expired which undisputedly was valid till 03.08.2024. The petitioner during the proceedings had informed about the blockade which was made at the when the vehicle during transit of the goods from Barabanki to Budaun, the truck was held up and could not reach its destination in time.

¶8

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that it was the duty of the petitioner to extend the validity of the e-way bill which was not done and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶9

It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of filing first appeal the appellantpetitioner has already deposited 25% of the penalty amount and present writ petition has been filed because the GST Tribunal has not yet been constituted in the State of U.P. It is submitted that in the case of filing second appeal before the GST Tribunal the petitioner was only liable to deposit 25% of the penalty amount which has already stands deposited by the petitioner.

¶10

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods ceased by the authorities is Mentha Oil which is liable to perish over a period of time and the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the security amount release of aforesaid goods.

¶11

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to move appropriate

¶12

application for release of goods before the Assessing Authority, who shall pass appropriate orders for release of goods after taking adequate security for the remaining outstanding amount, to his satisfaction, for the purpose of release of goods.

¶13

List this case on 12.11.2024.

¶14

In the meanwhile, let learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall file counter affidavit within three weeks. Two weeks thereafter is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of remaining penalty amount.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 A. Verma

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Taxes Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Taxes Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Parsnath @ Parsnath Udayaraj Chauhan Vs Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Ors.

Abhay Khare Vs Estate of Late Shri Ram Prakash and Others

Mukeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Adarsh Nigam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.