M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and a demand of penalty order dated 16.10.2024 in Form GST MOV-09 along with Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.3. Further the detention order and consequential notice dated 08.10.2024 have also been challenged. Operative disposition: Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure-1) is set
• 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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176212-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1852 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Lakhdatar Traders Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal, S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and a demand of penalty order dated 16.10.2024 in Form GST MOV-09 along with Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.3. Further the detention order and consequential notice dated 08.10.2024 have also been challenged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle 'DL1 MA-8846' was on its way from Patna, Bihar to Gurugram, Gurgaon, which was intercepted by the respondent-authorities on 04.10.2024 at 23:00 hours at Mathura. 3. The statement of the person incharge (driver) was obtained in Form GST MOV-01 and physical verification was made in which, it is claimed that no discrepancy was found. However, the goods were detained by indicating movement of goods without proper documents. A notice dated 08.10.2024 was issued in Form GSTMOV-07 inter alia indicating that the registration of the petitioner was suspended. Further several indications were made pertaining to the validity of the registration of the petitioner-firm. 4. The petitioner questioned the validity of the notice issued on the ground of suspension of the registration and sought release of the goods, however, by order impugned dated 16.10.2024, a demand

under Section 129 (1)(b) of the Act to the tune of Rs.14,81,490/- was made. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that it is not the case of the respondent that the vehicle was not accompanied by the requisite documents. The show cause notice simply indicates that the registration of the petitioner was suspended based on which, the demand has been raised, which is not justified. Submissions have been made that the documents in question are dated 01.10.2024 and that the show cause notice was issued by the jurisdictional authority at Bihar on 03.10.2024, wherein the registration has been suspended. However, apparently, the respondent-authorities, who had no jurisdiction had recorded a finding pertaining to the registration being bogus and as a consequence to the same, penalty under Section 129 (1)(b) has been imposed, which is not justified.

Reliance has been placed on judgement in Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P . and others, Writ Tax No.1297 of 2023 decided on 11.12.2023. 6. Learned Standing counsel supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that a bare perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the registration was obtained by the petitioner based on fake documents and, therefore, as the documents which were accompanying the goods in question were obtained based on a fake registration, the passing of the order was justified. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. The facts are not in dispute that the documents in question which were accompanied the goods, were dated 01.10.2024 and at the time of interception of the vehicle, the requisites were found.

The notice issued by the respondents indicated the fact of the registration being suspended by the jurisdictional authorities at Bihar on 03.10.2024, based on which, the penalty has been imposed under provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Halder Enterprises (supra), wherein, the goods were intercepted on 03.10.2023 and the suspension took place on 06.10.2023 w.e.f. 18.09.2023, after referring to the orders of this Court in M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P . and another, 2023:AHC:116953-DB and M/s Sanjay Sales Agency v. State of U.P . and another, 2023:AHC:193624DB, and provisions of Section 129 came to the conclusion that once the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to the petitioner, the circular dated 31.12.2018 would apply and the petitioner would be deemed to be owner of the goods and the same was to be released in terms of Section 129 (1) (a) of the CGST Act.

In the present case also, as noticed hereinbefore this is not the case of the respondents that the goods were not accompanied with proper tax invoice and E-way bill and only on account of the fact that the registration was suspended on 03.10.2024 that the action has been initiated and the order impugned has been passed as such the issue stands covered. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure-1) is set aside. 10. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of two weeks from today. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 N.S.Rathour/A.Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

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 Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others concerns issue and context: this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the proceedings initiated under section 129 of the cgst act read with section 20 of the igst act and a demand of penalty order dated 16.10.2024 in form gst mov-09 along with form gst drc-07 dated 16.10.2024 passed by respondent no.3. further the detention order and consequential notice dated 08.10.2024 have also been challenged. operative disposition: consequently, the writ petition is allowed. the order impugned dated 16.10.2024 (annexure-1) is set 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. - 1852 of 2024.

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: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and a demand of penalty order dated 16.10.2024 in Form GST MOV-09 along with Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.3. Further the detention order and consequential notice dated 08.10.2024 have also been challenged. Operative disposition: Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure-1) is set Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 20; 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 20; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1) and the decision date 2024-11-11; 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 M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 1852 of 2024, and the decision is dated 2024-11-11. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice; Vikas Budhwar,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 20; 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 20 — 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.

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