M/S Abhishek Sales v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns GST statutory provision - Section 129(3). The retained release ledger records the outcome as Allowed / set aside and classifies the matter under Refunds.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:32107
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 7 of 2020
Petitioner :- M/S Abhishek Sales Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Issues before the Court
Petitioner :- M/S Abhishek Sales Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Court's analysis and findings
(i) The bilty and the invoice that were accompanying the goods
reflected the erstwhile truck number that has been used in the first
(ii) The Private Marka mentioned in the bilty was not specifically
mentioned in the bags carrying the goods.
Decision and relief
petitioner is directed to be refunded to him within a period of four
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Rakesh
2024-02-23T15:50:14+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Ratio and practical significance
The binding effect flows from the court's operative reasoning reproduced below, read in the context of the pleaded facts and statutory provisions. Users should not generalise the result beyond materially comparable facts.
- Map the operative reasoning to the exact GST provision and procedural stage.
- Confirm whether a later review, appeal, SLP or subsequent judgment affects reliance.
- Preserve the official case number, decision date and neutral citation in professional work.
Full judgment text
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:32107
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 7 of 2020
Petitioner :- M/S Abhishek Sales Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
December 29, 2018 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section
129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the subsequent order dated
December 10, 2019 passed in appeal by the respondent No.3.
3. Mr. Subham Agrawal, counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that in the present case, the vehicle was changed
in route and when the said change took place, the transporter
uploaded and changed the new vehicle number in Part-B of the e-
way bill. He further submits that the authorities intercepted the
goods and imposed penalty on the following grounds:-
(i) The bilty and the invoice that were accompanying the goods
reflected the erstwhile truck number that has been used in the first
(ii) The Private Marka mentioned in the bilty was not specifically
mentioned in the bags carrying the goods.
5. It is to be noted that the goods were in order and the e-way bill
was also as per the goods that were being transported.
6. Upon perusal of the documents, it is clear that Part-B of the e-
way bill has been changed due to change of the vehicle. It is
obvious that when a vehicle is changed, the number in the bilty
could not be changed as the goods were in transit. Consequently,
the first ground is baseless and is rejected out rightly.
7. The second ground that private marka was not mentioned in the
bags carrying the goods does not in any manner raise a
presumption of evasion of tax.
8. In light of the above, the impugned orders are without any basis
in law and are accordingly quashed and set-aside. Consequential
reliefs to follow. Any amount that has been deposited by the
petitioner is directed to be refunded to him within a period of four
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Rakesh
2024-02-23T15:50:14+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Finin2min Q&A
What court decided this case?
Allahabad High Court
What was the case number?
WRIT TAX No. 7 of 2020
When was the decision delivered?
2024-02-23
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
GST statutory provision - Section 129(3)
What was the recorded outcome?
Allowed / set aside
Is the complete judgment text available here?
Yes. This page includes a faithful local rendition of the full text recovered from the issuing court source.
Should this page substitute professional advice?
No. Verify the official citation and later history before professional reliance.
Who authored the Finin2min case note?
CA Nikhil Gupta.