M/S Sunil Traders v. State Of U.P. 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 Allowed / set aside and classifies the matter under Refunds.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218093
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 678 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Sunil Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Saleem Akhter,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Ms.
Issues before the Court
Petitioner :- M/S Sunil Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Saleem Akhter,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Ms.
Vedika Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
Court's analysis and findings
The order dated 22.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2
and order dated 12.02.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 is
assailed in this writ petition. In the impugned order dated
12.02.2018, penalty has been imposed with respect to the
Decision and relief
be refunded in accordance with law within a period of one
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Pravin
2023-11-20T10:19:40+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. - 2023:AHC:218093
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 678 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Sunil Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Saleem Akhter,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Ms.
Vedika Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the controversy is covered by successive judgments of
Division Benches rendered by this Court in Godrej and
Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. reported
at 2018 (19) G.S.T.L 193 (All.) and M/s Varun
Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others in
Writ Tax No. 1670 of 2018.
Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid proposition and
fairly admits that the judgments of this Court in Godrej
and Boyce (supra) and M/s Varun Beverages (supra)
have attained finality since they have not been carried in
The order dated 22.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2
and order dated 12.02.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 is
assailed in this writ petition. In the impugned order dated
12.02.2018, penalty has been imposed with respect to the
goods being transported without e-way bill under U.P.
G.S.T. Act, 2017 read with Rules framed thereunder. The
infraction occurred during the period 01.02.2018 to
31.03.2018. Learned Division Bench of this Court in M/s
Varun Beverages (supra) held as under:
"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.
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 03.11.2018 and also the order dated 21.02.2018 are hereby quashed."
The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment
rendered in M/s Varun Beverages (supra). The writ
petition is accordingly being decided in light of the law
laid down in M/s Varun Beverages (supra).
The impugned orders dated 22.12.2020 and 12.02.2018
are quashed. Any amount deposited by the petitioner shall
be refunded in accordance with law within a period of one
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Pravin
2023-11-20T10:19:40+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. 678 of 2023
When was the decision delivered?
2023-11-16
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
None
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.