M/s GLOBE PANEL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 129(3)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: In light of the same, this Court is unable to agree with the findings of the authorities, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated January 16, 2023 and January 30, 2023 are quashed and set aside. Operative disposition: The instant writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to the costs. Date: 05.02.2024 Kuldeep (Shekhar B. Saraf,
• 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

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19158 Court No. 1 Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf WRIT TAX No. - 141 of 2023 M/s GLOBE PANEL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS For the petitioner : Shubham Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondents : Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel (Judgment dicated in open Court) 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order dated January 16, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Sector 1, Mobile Squad, Deoria under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinfater referred to as “the Act”) and the appellate order dated January 30, 2023 passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Judicial Division, Gorakhpur. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the particular vehicle was accompanied by two e-Invoices and two E-Way Bills. He further submitted that the goods matched the description in the eInvioices and the E-Way Bills. The only descrpency that was found at the time of detention was that one of the E-Way Bills had expired. Apart from this discrepancy, there is no other finding with regard to intention of the petitioner to evade tax. He relied upon the documents to indicate that the vehicle had broken down. The same is evidenced by the letter of the mechanic, who had repaired the particular vehicle. Furthermore, the

the goods in the vehicle. In relation to the e-Invoices and the E-Way Bills, the authorities have not been able indicate any intention whatsoever on behalf of the petitioner to evade tax. Indubitably, there is a technical violation that has been committed by the petitioner. However, the authorities have not been able to indicate in any manner that the E-Way Bill had been used repeatedly nor have they made out any case with regard to an intention to evade tax by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that such a technical violation by itself without any intention to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. This view is fortified by a catena of judgments as indicated above. 5. In light of the same, this Court is unable to agree with the findings of the authorities, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated January 16, 2023 and January 30, 2023 are quashed and set aside. 6. This Court directs the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date. 7. The instant writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to the costs. Date: 05.02.2024 Kuldeep (Shekhar B. Saraf, 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 M/s GLOBE PANEL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS concerns issue and context: in light of the same, this court is unable to agree with the findings of the authorities, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated january 16, 2023 and january 30, 2023 are quashed and set aside. operative disposition: the instant writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. there shall be no order as to the costs. date: 05.02.2024 kuldeep (shekhar b. saraf, 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. - 141 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: In light of the same, this Court is unable to agree with the findings of the authorities, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated January 16, 2023 and January 30, 2023 are quashed and set aside. Operative disposition: The instant writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to the costs. Date: 05.02.2024 Kuldeep (Shekhar B. Saraf, Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 129(3)—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(3) and the decision date 2024-02-05; 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 M/s GLOBE PANEL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 141 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2024-02-05. 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 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(3). 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(3) — 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