M/S Hira Lal Arun Kumar Through Its Proprietor Arun Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government Of U.P And 2 Other
Reviewed by CA Nikhil Gupta · Last reviewed 30 January 2024
Case data and operative result
Repository ID: F2J-C-0964
Court / Tribunal: Allahabad High Court
Case number: WRIT TAX No. 240 of 2020
Decision date: —
Law family: GST
Outcome category: Allowed / set aside
Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 107(4); Section 107(4)
Extractive case note
Petitioner :- M/S Hira Lal Arun Kumar Through Its Proprietor Arun Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government Of U.P And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Operative-result extract
dated March 20, 2018 are hereby quashed.
Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-0964)
The complete packaged judgment text and PDF are the controlling records. The case note is extractive and should not be treated as a substitute for the operative order or later-history verification.
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns GST statutory provision - Section 107(4). The retained release ledger records the outcome as Allowed / set aside and classifies the matter under Appeals & Limitation.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:15278
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 240 of 2020
Petitioner :- M/S Hira Lal Arun Kumar Through Its Proprietor Arun Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government Of U.P And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
(Judgement dictated in Open Court)
Issues before the Court
Petitioner :- M/S Hira Lal Arun Kumar Through Its Proprietor Arun Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government Of U.P And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
(Judgement dictated in Open Court)
1. Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Court's analysis and findings
M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of
U.P. and others reported in 2018 U.P.T.C.[Vol.100]-1206, it
has been submitted, during the period 01.02.2018 to
31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under U.P. GST Act
Decision and relief
6. Any amount deposited by the petitioner may be refunded
in accordance with law within a period of one month.
Order Date :- 30.1.2024 Dev/-
2024-02-01T11:49:59+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:15278
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 240 of 2020
Petitioner :- M/S Hira Lal Arun Kumar Through Its Proprietor Arun Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government Of U.P And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
(Judgement dictated in Open Court)
1. Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated April 26,
2019 passed by the respondent no.2, Additional
Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-I, Commercial Tax,
Saharanpur, under Section 107(4) of U.P. GST Act, 2017
and also the order dated March 20, 2018 passed by
respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner Incharge (Mobile
3. By the impugned order dated March 20, 2018, penalty has
been imposed with respect to the goods being transported
without e-way bill under U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules
4. Relying on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in
M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of
U.P. and others reported in 2018 U.P.T.C.[Vol.100]-1206, it
has been submitted, during the period 01.02.2018 to
31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under U.P. GST Act
read with Rules framed thereunder was unenforceable.
Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the
penalty be sustained. Also, the petitioner's appeal against
the order dated march 3, 2018 came to be dismissed on
account of delay beyond the period eligible for condonation
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record, so far as the matter is squarely covered
by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej
and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (supra), with which we
are in agreement, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated April 26, 2019 and also the order
dated March 20, 2018 are hereby quashed.
6. Any amount deposited by the petitioner may be refunded
in accordance with law within a period of one month.
Order Date :- 30.1.2024 Dev/-
2024-02-01T11:49:59+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. 240 of 2020
When was the decision delivered?
2024-01-30
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
GST statutory provision - Section 107(4)
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.