M/S New Devki Trading Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Reviewed by CA Nikhil Gupta · Last reviewed 23 February 2024
Case data and operative result
Repository ID: F2J-C-0982
Court / Tribunal: Allahabad High Court
Case number: WRIT TAX No. 27 of 2021
Decision date: —
Law family: GST
Outcome category: Allowed / set aside
Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 129(3); Section 129(3); Article 226
Extractive case note
Petitioner :- M/S New Devki Trading Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. vehicle. He submits that the error in part B of the E-Way Bill was
Operative-result extract
order passed in appeal dated July 16, 2019 are quashed and set
Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-0982)
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 129(3). The retained release ledger records the outcome as Allowed / set aside and classifies the matter under Detention, Seizure & E-Way Bill.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:32107
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 27 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S New Devki Trading Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on
Issues before the Court
Petitioner :- M/S New Devki Trading Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing
Court's analysis and findings
only discrepancy in the documents that were accompanying the
goods was with regard to incorrect vehicle number mentioned in
part B of the E-Way Bill. Apart from this, there was no
discrepancy and the bilty contained the correct number of the
Decision and relief
5. The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Kuldeep
2024-02-27T14:43:49+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2024-02-28T11:09:32+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. - 27 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S New Devki Trading Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order imposing
penalty dated October 9, 2018 passed by the respondent
No.2/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit VII,
Agra under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and
the order dated July 16, 2019 passed in appeal by the Respondent
No.3./Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-III, State Tax,
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
only discrepancy in the documents that were accompanying the
goods was with regard to incorrect vehicle number mentioned in
part B of the E-Way Bill. Apart from this, there was no
discrepancy and the bilty contained the correct number of the
vehicle. He submits that the error in part B of the E-Way Bill was
only typographical. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in
M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. and others
(Writ Tax No.1400 of 2019 decided on January 2, 2024) to buttress
his argument that the typographical error in the vehicle number
would not result in imposing of penalty under Section 129(3) of
4. The factual matrix in Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics’ case
(supra) are pari materia to the factual matrix of the present case.
Accordingly order imposing penalty dated October 9, 2018 and the
order passed in appeal dated July 16, 2019 are quashed and set
aside. The consequential reliefs to be provided to the petitioner
within four weeks from date.
5. The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Kuldeep
2024-02-27T14:43:49+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2024-02-28T11:09:32+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. 27 of 2021
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.