Hemant Taneja v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3); GST statutory provision - Section 138

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 upheld the findings of the authority of first instance and confirmed the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner. Operative disposition: The impugned order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.3/learned appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and are
• 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:220665 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1031 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hemant Taneja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar,Damodar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,83,442/-. The order of the penalty was carried in appeal by the petitioner. 3. The appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 upheld the findings of the authority of first instance and confirmed the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 / Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad and the order dated 04.01.2023, the petitioner has assailed the same in

the writ petition. 5. The petitioner is a proprietor running under the name and style of ‘M/s. J.S. Enterprises’ in trading of taxable goods falling under Chapter-74 of the Goods and Service Tariff Act. 6. The petitioner is duly registered as a trader under the GST Act and has been issued a GST Identification Number i.e. 07AECPT6934N1ZU by the competent authority. 7. The petitioner received an order from one M/s. Vaishnavi Electronics, Ghaziabad for supply of Copper Clad Laminte, etc. Upon receipt of the said order the petitioner prepared an e-Invoice No.766/2022-23 dated 04.01.2023 at 10.10 a.m. The e-Way Bill bearing No.721309051066 dated 04.01.2023 was auto generated at 10.13 a.m. after the petitioner had got the aforesaid invoice registered on the common GST portal. 8. According to the petitioner, both the e-Invoice as well as e-Way Bill were provided to the vehicle driver in the digital mode. The vehicle proceeded to its destination after the goods were loaded and the driver was provided with the necessary documentation. When the vehicle was intercepted by the revenue authorities, the driver produced e-Invoice as well as e-Way Bill. However, the revenue authorities conducted the physical inspection of the goods under transportation. At the time of the physical verification of the goods the representative of the petitioner firm appeared before the revenue

authorities and presented hard copies of the e-Invoice No.766/2022-23 dated 04.01.2023 and e-Way Bill No.721309051066 dated 04.01.2023. The representative of the petitioner firm sought to demonstrate that the goods being transported were fully supported by valid documentation contemplated under the GST Act. However, the revenue authorities passed a detention order detaining the vehicle and the goods. 9. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.01.2023. 10. The show cause notice records that the vehicle driver had produced a tax invoice No.766/2022-23 dated 04.01.2023, but the said tax invoice did not bear the signatures of the authorized signatory. Further, the driver of the vehicle was failed to produce other valid documents. In this manner according to the show cause notice, the goods were transported without the valid and complete documentation in violation of relevant provisions of the GST Act. The show cause notice also records that at the time of inspection the representative of the petitioner was present and had duly produced eInvoice No.766 dated 04.01.2023 and generated the same at 10.10 AM. and also e-Way Bill dated 04.01.2023 generated same at 10.13 AM. According to the show cause notice further enquiries revealed that the said eInvoice and e-Way Bill so produced disclosed the goods which were being transported. However, in view of the fact that the said documents were not produced at the time of interception of the vehicle violation of provisions

of Section 138 of the GST Rules was made out and appropriate action was liable to be taken. 11. The petitioner was keen to honour the business transaction and hence paid the penalty to get the goods released for onward transportation to the buyer. The order dated 04.01.2023 purportedly passed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act also finds that the petitioner had produced the said e-Invoice as well as eWay Bill which clearly disclosed the goods which were being transported and were intercepted. However, since the driver of the vehicle had failed to produce the relevant documents at the time of interception, the violation of provisions of the GST Act read with Rules was established and penalty was liable to be imposed. The impugned order thereafter imposes the aforesaid penalty in purported exercise of Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act and penalty was imposed. 12. The petitioner carried the said order in appeal before the appellate authority by instituting an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. “Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority ……….. (6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid— (a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and (b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, in relation to which the appeal has been filed:

[PROVIDED that no appeal shall be filed against an order under subsection (3) of section 129, unless a sum equal to twenty-five per cent of the penalty has been paid by the appellant.] (7) Where the appellant has paid the amount under sub-section (6), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed.” 13. The consistent case of the petitioner before the appellate authority as well as this Court is that the driver had produced the e-Invoice as well as e-Way Bill which were stored in his mobile number. However, the authorities failed to verify the same and initiated the impugned proceedings. Further, it is an admitted case that the hard copies of the tax Invoice as well as e-Way Bill were duly produced when the representative of the petitioner appeared before the Mobile Squad of the Revenue Department during the proceedings. 14. The impugned order while upholding the order of penalty reiterates the reasoning in the order passed by the Mobile Squad of the revenue authorities of the first instance. 15. The appellate authority/respondent No.3 in the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 has recorded these findings. The petitioner had failed to generate and download the e-Way Bill before transporting the goods. The petitioner failed to produce any document apart from tax invoice at the time of the interception of the vehicle. The order further notices the submission of the appellant/petitioner that the e-Invoice as well as e-Way Bill were uploaded in the mobile of the driver of the

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

vehicle. The e-challan was digitally signed by the petitioner. Hence, the appellate authority records his submission to the effect that since the digital documents were produced hard copies with signatures were not required to be presented to the officers. 16. On the footing of the aforesaid discussion, the appellate authority in the impugned order has found that the appellant/petitioner did not generate e-Way Bill with a view to evade tax and thus violated the provisions of the GST Act read with GST Rules and was liable to pay the penalty. The appeal was thus rejected. 17. Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that: I. The petitioner had generated the relevant documents, namely, e-Invoice and e-Way Bill as per the provisions of the GST Act. II. The said documents were produced before the Revenue Authorities at the time of inspection of the vehicle. III. The petitioner was not intent to evade tax. 18. Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that: I. The driver of the vehicle was not in a possession of the forms, and hence the production of the aforesaid forms at the time of inspection is of no avail. II. The intent to evade tax is established. 19. For adjudicating the submissions made at the Bar, it

It is obvious that the learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases is correct and contenting that whether or not a payment is made under Section 129(1)(a) or security is provided under Section 129 (1) (c), the person who is the subject matter of proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act has the right to challenge those proceedings, culminating in an order under sub-section (3) of Section 129, before the duly constituted Appellate Authority under Section 107 of that Act. The fact that the culmination of proceedings in respect of a person who seeks to make payment of Tax and Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) does not result in the generation of a summary of an order under Form DRC-07 cannot result in the right of the person to file an appeal under Section 107 being deprived.

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

33. The case of the petitioner stands on a better footing. 34. Since all the documents have been admittedly produced before the authorities at the time of inspection, there was no cause for detention, seizure or imposition of the penalty as has been done by the authorities in this case. 35. It is noteworthy that the revenue is not challenged the authenticity of the bills or the fact that they were not duly filled it or the details were absent in the said bills. No irregularity in the bills have been pointed out on behalf of the revenue. 36. The bills contained all relevant details of the goods and the tax are liable to be paid. 37. The impugned order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.3/learned appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and are quashed. 38. The amount deposited shall be forthwith refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law. 39. The writ petition (tax) is allowed. 40. The case at hand reflects that not only the mobile squad had misdirected itself in law but the appellate authorities have failed to redeem the errors. The Court has no hesitation to observe that a honest tax payer in the facts of this case has been unnecessarily harassed by

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Hemant Taneja v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others concerns issue and context: the appellate authority/additional commissioner, state tax, mobile squad, unit-7, ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 upheld the findings of the authority of first instance and confirmed the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner. operative disposition: the impugned order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the assistant commissioner, commercial tax, mobile squad-vii, ghaziabad as well as the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent no.3/learned appellate authority/additional commissioner, state tax, mobile squad, unit-7, ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and are 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. - 1031 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 “Disposed” 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: The appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 upheld the findings of the authority of first instance and confirmed the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner. Operative disposition: The impugned order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.3/learned appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and are Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3); GST statutory provision - Section 138—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 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3); GST statutory provision - Section 138 and the decision date 2023-11-21; 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 Hemant Taneja v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 1031 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-11-21. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Ajay Bhanot,J.. 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 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3); GST statutory provision - Section 138. 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 Disposed. 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 67 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 68 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 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.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129(3) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 138 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• KAMAL ENVIROTECH PVT. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF GST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed

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