Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; 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:37129
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1374 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent.
2. Instant writ petition arises out of penalty order dated August 20, 2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order passed in appeal dated November 20, 2019 under Section 107 of the Act.
Issues before the Court
1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent.
2. Instant writ petition arises out of penalty order dated August 20, 2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order passed in appeal dated November 20, 2019 under Section 107 of the Act.
3. In the present case, the proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been initiated subsequent to search of the business premises of the petitioner.
Court's analysis and findings
3. In the present case, the proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been initiated subsequent to search of the business premises of the petitioner.
4. It has been categorically held by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in (2022 U.P.T.C. [VOL.112] - 1514) that search and seizure of the godown cannot result in penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the Act.
5. In light of the above, present proceedings are not justified, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated August 20, 2018 and November 20, 2019 are quashed and set aside.
6. This Court directs the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date.
Decision and relief
7. The instant writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Consequential reliefs to follow.
8. Any amount that has been deposited by the petitioner to be refunded within a period of four weeks from date.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024 Kuldeep
2024-03-01T10:51:09+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:37129
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1374 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent.
2. Instant writ petition arises out of penalty order dated August 20, 2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order passed in appeal dated November 20, 2019 under Section 107 of the Act.
3. In the present case, the proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been initiated subsequent to search of the business premises of the petitioner.
4. It has been categorically held by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in (2022 U.P.T.C. [VOL.112] - 1514) that search and seizure of the godown cannot result in penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the Act.
5. In light of the above, present proceedings are not justified, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated August 20, 2018 and November 20, 2019 are quashed and set aside.
6. This Court directs the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date.
7. The instant writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Consequential reliefs to follow.
8. Any amount that has been deposited by the petitioner to be refunded within a period of four weeks from date.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024 Kuldeep
2024-03-01T10:51:09+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. 1374 of 2019
When was the decision delivered?
2024-02-29
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; 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.