M/S Ridhi Sidhi Granite And Tiles v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns None. The retained release ledger records the outcome as Disposed and classifies the matter under Appeals & Limitation.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:37487
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 298 of 2024
Petitioner :- M/S Ridhi Sidhi Granite And Tiles Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Rishi Raj Kapoor
1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the
Issues before the Court
Petitioner :- M/S Ridhi Sidhi Granite And Tiles Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Rishi Raj Kapoor
1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
Court's analysis and findings
were intact. The imposition of tax is only on the basis of a
technical error with regard to address of the consignee that
was wrongly written in the E-Way Bill. The authorities have
not been able to indicate any mens rea on the part of the
Decision and relief
period of one month from date. Other consequential reliefs
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Dev/-
2024-03-01T14:41:11+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:37487
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 298 of 2024
Petitioner :- M/S Ridhi Sidhi Granite And Tiles Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Rishi Raj Kapoor
1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated September 23, 2023 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Goods and
Services Tax, NOIDA dismissing the appeal filed by the
petitioner and the order in original dated April 10, 2021.
3. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that apart from an
error with regard to the address of the consignee in the E-
Way Bill, there were no other issues with the said
consignment. The invoice contained the address, the goods
matched the description in the invoice and all other materials
were intact. The imposition of tax is only on the basis of a
technical error with regard to address of the consignee that
was wrongly written in the E-Way Bill. The authorities have
not been able to indicate any mens rea on the part of the
petitioner for evasion of tax.
4. In a catena of judgments, this Court has held that
presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for
imposition of penalty and mere technical error would not
lead to imposition of penalty [see M/s Modern Traders v.
State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.763 of 2018, decided
on 9.5.2018), M/s Galaxy Enterprises v. State of U.P. and
others (Writ Tax No.1412 of 2022, decided on 6.11.2023
and Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. and
others (Writ Tax No.1400 of 2019, decided on 2.1.2024].
5. In light of the above, the orders dated September 23,
2023 and April 10, 2021 are quashed and set aside. The
amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to it within a
period of one month from date. Other consequential reliefs
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Dev/-
2024-03-01T14:41:11+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. 298 of 2024
When was the decision delivered?
2024-03-01
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
None
What was the recorded outcome?
Disposed
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.