H/S HALDER ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: At the outset, we may state that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he is restricting the prayers made in the writ petition to the proceeding initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Operative disposition: With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Kuldeep (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) 5 of
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227182-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Present: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA V ARMA THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHEKHAR B. SARAF WRIT TAX No. - 1297 of 2023 H/S HALDER ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Pandey, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankur Agarwal, Adv. Last heard on : December 06, 2023 Judgement on : December 11, 2023 1. The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the actions of the respondents 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”). 2. At the outset, we may state that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he is restricting 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. 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 while the authorities have

made the calculation under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act by an order dated October 19, 2023. 5. Before proceeding, one may record the brief facts of the case. The petitioner received an order for supply of Dried Arecanuts from M/s Komolika Trading Co., New Delhi. Subsequently, the goods were loaded on the vehicle and sent along with invoice and E-way bill. When the goods were on its way from Calcutta to New Delhi, the same were intercepted in the State of U.P. on October 3, 2023. The relevant facts are that upon physical verification being made, it was found that there was no discrepancy in relation to the consignment and the goods were as per the invoice and Eway bill.

9. Upon perusal of the record and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we would first like to place on record the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P . and another, 2023:/AHC:116953-DB (Coram: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. and Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar-IV , J.), wherein it has been categorically held that Circular dated December 31, 2018 is applicable and when the tax invoice and the E-way bill are produced by the assessee, the goods shall be treated as belonging to the assessee, who comes before the authorities as the owner of the goods and produces the above documents. The Court further held in such cases that the security is required to be in terms of Section 129(1)(a) and not under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.

the owner of the goods. Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. 12. In light of 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. 13. As the petitioner has not pressed for the other prayers in the writ petition, the same may be pursued by him before the appropriate forum. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Kuldeep (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with H/S HALDER ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS concerns issue and context: at the outset, we may state that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he is restricting the prayers made in the writ petition to the proceeding initiated under section 129 of the cgst act. operative disposition: with the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. order date :- 11.12.2023 kuldeep (shekhar b. saraf,j.) (siddhartha varma,j.) 5 of The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 1297 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: At the outset, we may state that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he is restricting the prayers made in the writ petition to the proceeding initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Operative disposition: With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Kuldeep (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) 5 of Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1) and the decision date 2023-12-11; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is H/S HALDER ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 1297 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-12-11. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Varma; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 129 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Detention, Seizure & E-Way Bill

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY