Disposed

Hind Iron Store Thru. Proprietor Mohammad Isha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025WTAX/1177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging affirmation of a tax order following seizure of sand from petitioner's premises without a Section 67 CGST notice and a coerced Rs 5 lakh deposit. Court sought counter affidavit, ordered release of frozen accounts forthwith and stayed further recovery as interim measures.

What did the court decide?

Accounts ordered released forthwith; further recovery per impugned order stayed; counter affidavit due in two weeks; matter listed for 02.12.2025.

Hind Iron Store Thru. Proprietor Mohammad Isha vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 1177 of 2025

¶3

Hind Iron Store Thru. Proprietor Mohammad Isha

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration, Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

egsraon, o. n	ers		.....Respon	dent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Shujat Kidwai, Mahmood	Mohammad	Asad
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.
Court No.- 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Shujat Kidwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 has been affirmed.

¶11

A further direction has been sought that the accounts of the petitioner which have been frozen be released as the petitioner is suffering great hardship.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 14.10.2022, the premises of the petitioner were inspected wherein 600 cubic feet of Morang (coarse sand) was found and it is alleged that there was no bill relating to the said morang. The same was seized along with certain other items.

¶13

The submission is that there could have been no seizure of goods which were lying in the premises of the petitioner as in terms of Section 129, it would only be possible if the goods were in transit.

¶14

It is further urged that though the power of inspection, search and seizure has been conferred on the Authorities in terms of Section 67 of the

¶15

WTAX No. 1177 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short "CGST Act, 2017") but no such notice was issued to the petitioner which would indicate that the survey as well as the seizure was done in terms of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017

¶18

It is also urged that the petitioner was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (5 Lakh) which was done under coercion on 16.10.2022 failing which the goods seized would have perished.

¶19

It is also urged that thereafter the notice was issued on 28.10.2022 and on the said notice, there was no specific date mentioned regarding the date of appearance or the date for filing of the written submissions, accordingly, in an omnibus fashion the entire proceedings have been initiated and twos separate proceedings have sought to be merged. The objections which were filed have not been taken note of and the appeal has also been dismissed.

¶20

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents had urged that after the inspection was made and on 16.10.2022, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner yet the following day, a rectification order was passed. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said there is no liability or that the process adopted by the Authorities is against the law.

¶21

The matter requires consideration.

¶22

Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks with an advance copy to the petitioner, who if may so chose, may file his response within a period of one week thereafter.

¶23

List this matter on 02nd December, 2025.

¶24

As an interim measure, it is provided that the accounts which have been seized should be released forthwith and the further recovery in terms of the impugned order shall remain stayed.

¶25

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶26

November 6, 2025 Asheesh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hind Iron Store Thru. Proprietor Mohammad Isha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hind Iron Store Thru. Proprietor Mohammad Isha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration, Lko. and 2 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

Sidhnath and Another Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Patti, Pratapgarh and 6 Others

Mushahab Ali Vs Assistant Collector, I Class/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Bangarmau,Unnao and Others

Saiphal @ Adalti Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

M/S R Cube Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Ravinder Kaur Srivastava vs Sri Kumar Prashant, Managing Director U.P. State Construction and Infrastr. Dev. Corp. Ltd.Lko.

Pramila Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Pratapgarh and 21 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others