M/S Monotech Systems Limited v. State Of Up And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 129

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure and notice of penalty. The respondent no.2 has also not considered the above notification dated 07.03.2018." The matter is covered by the judgment rendered in VSL Alloys (supra). The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Noida is unsustainable and is quashed. The petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Pravin Reported disposition: Allowed / 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

AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176192 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1689 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Monotech Systems Limited Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra,Satya Vrata Mehrotra,Utkarsh Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The impugned order arises out of proceedings which were instituted after interception of the vehicle carrying the offending goods. The revenue authorities upon finding that the E-Way Bill was not filled asked the assessee to show cause. After physical inspection of the goods no discrepancy was found. The goods tallied with the description in the E-Way Bill. The assessee on show cause resisted the proceedings by filing a response. According to the assessee there was no intent to evade the tax. The goods in the vehicle were fully reconciled with the E-Way bill. Non filling of the part of E-Way Bill would not ipso facto trigger the proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act in the facts of this case. The adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority negatived the submissions made on behalf of the

assessee and passed the impugned order. The facts which are admitted and disclosed from the records are these. There was no discrepancy in the goods which were physically found at the time of inspection and details of goods recorded in the E-Way Bill available with the driver of the vehicle. The authorities below have not found any intent to evade tax. This Court has set its face against initiation of proceedings under Section 129 of GST Act in the wake of mere technical breaches. When substantial compliance of the provisions is disclosed and when the physical inspection of goods tallies with the goods declared in the E-Way Bill and no intent of tax evasion is made out, proceedings under Section 129 of GST Act become vitiated.

illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure and notice of penalty. The respondent no.2 has also not considered the above notification dated 07.03.2018." The matter is covered by the judgment rendered in VSL Alloys (supra). The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Noida is unsustainable and is quashed. The petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Pravin

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

In VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another (Writ Tax No.- 637 of 2018) this Court has held as under: "We are in full agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the relevant documents, we find no ill intention at the hands of the petitioner nor the petitioner was supposed to fill up Part-B giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in a vehicle, which is meant for transportation to the same to its end destination. In the present case, all the documents were accompanied the goods, details are duly mentioned which reflects from the perusal of the documents.

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 Monotech Systems Limited v. State Of Up And 2 Others concerns issue and context: illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order. in this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure and notice of penalty. the respondent no.2 has also not considered the above notification dated 07.03.2018." the matter is covered by the judgment rendered in vsl alloys (supra). the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, additional commissioner, commercial tax grade-2 (appeal)-i, state tax, noida is unsustainable and is quashed. the petition is allowed. order date :- 11.11.2024 pravin reported disposition: allowed / 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. - 1689 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: illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure and notice of penalty. The respondent no.2 has also not considered the above notification dated 07.03.2018." The matter is covered by the judgment rendered in VSL Alloys (supra). The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Noida is unsustainable and is quashed. The petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Pravin Reported disposition: Allowed / set Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 129—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 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 Monotech Systems Limited v. State Of Up And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 1689 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 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 129. 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 — 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