Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Proprietor Bhuwan Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(53); GST statutory provision - Section 2(9); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• The court considered the GST dispute in Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Proprietor Bhuwan Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. Reported disposition:
• 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

A.F.R. RESERVED JUDGMENT Reserved On: 22.3.2018 Delivered On: 13.04.2018 Court No. - 5 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 5536 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satyendra Goods Transport Corp. Thru. Prop. Bhuwan Kohli & A Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax & Registration & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeeo Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Dr Deepti Tripathi Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. (Per: Rajan Roy, J.) Heard Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4, Dr. Deepti Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of seizure under section 129(1) as well as imposition of tax and penalty under section 129(3) of the U.P.

Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017’). A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the ground of availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Grade II (Appeal) under section 107 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, however, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner responded by submitting that the very basis for the impugned action i.e. Rule 138 of U.P.G.S.T. Rules 2017 and the notification issued by the State Government thereunder as also section 129 of U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 was apparently inapplicable, therefore, the preliminary objection is not tenable.

The facts of the case in brief are that 220 pieces of Chocholate Display Cooler of M/s Voltas Ltd. were being transported from Pant Nagar, Rudrapur, Uddham Singh Nagar, State of Uttarakhand to

Radiant Enterprises, Megaflex Plastic Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal, with Tax Invoice No.117351003728, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition. It is said that Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred as ‘I.G.S.T.’) at the rate of 28% was duly paid on the said inter-state supply of goods. During the course of movement of these goods through the State of U.P. the consignment was intercepted at Lucknow on 17.12.2017 and the goods as well as documents were checked, whereupon, a T.D.F. Form was presented, which, on examination, was found to be related to another vehicle and another transportation pertaining to different goods. Accordingly, the truck alongwith the goods was seized on the same date, as, it was not carrying genuine and original T.D.F.

Form. Proceedings under section 129 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 were undertaken against the truck-driver Mohammad Alamgir i.e. petitioner No.2. After issuance of notice of seizure on 17.12.2017 a show-cause notice under section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 was issued to the truck-driver on the same date. A reply to the said notice was submitted by the Transporter M/s T.V.S. Logistics Service Pvt. Ltd. on 3.1.2018, thereafter, an order under section 129(3) for payment of tax and penalty under clause (b) of section 129(1) was passed by the proper officer. The contention of Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioner no.1 was retained by M/s T.V.S.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

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

Logistics Service Pvt. Ltd. for transporting the goods in question, when the aforesaid incident occurred. The contention was that the transaction was one of inter-State supply of goods, therefore, it was covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘I.G.S.T. Act 2017’) and as per section 20 (xv) thereof, in matters of inspection, search, seizure and arrest, provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred ‘C.G.S.T. Act 2017’) were applicable. As per section 68 of the

C.G.S.T. Act 2017, inter alia, Government may require, the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified, to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. This prescription is contained in Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘C.G.S.T. Rules 2017’), but, no notification had been issued by the Central Government under the said rule specifying the documents that a person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods shall carry while the goods are in movement or in transit storage, therefore, the rule was practicallty inoperative and there was no requirement of carrying any such document on the relevant date i.e.

Council and it provides for an interim arrangement by the Government till an E-way Bill System is so developed and approved. The words “Government” used therein is defined in section 2(53) of C.G.S.T. Act 2017 to mean the “Central Government”. It is not in dispute that on the date of interception of the vehicle in question Eway Bill System had not been developed, therefore, the documents which were required to be carried during movement of any consignment of goods were those which may have been notified by the Central Government under Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Rules 2017, as, by virtue of section 20(xv) thereof, it is this rule which is applicable to matters pertaining to I.G.S.T.

In view of the above it cannot be said that there was any intent to evade tax. As regards the contention of Sri Rahul Shukla, based on the notification issued under Rule 138 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, no doubt the said notification also takes into consideration the requirement of carrying documents i.e. T.D.F. Form-1, in respect of inter-State movements of goods, but, in our view it is only the Government of India which is empowered to issue such a notification in respect of inter-State trade under section 20(xv) of the I.G.S.T. Act

2017 read with section 68 of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017 and Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Rules 2017 made thereunder, as, the term ‘Government’ used in Rule 138 is defined in section 2(53) of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017 to mean the ‘Central Government’, just as, under section 2(9) of the I.G.S.T. Act 2017 ‘Government’ means ‘ the Central Government’. Moreover, with respect to Goods and Service Tax in relation to interState Trade the Parliament alone has the authority to legislate as would be evident from the 101st Amendment to the Constitution. In this view of the matter we are of the considered view that on the relevant date i.e. 17.12.2017 there was no requirement of carrying T.D.F.

We are invalidating the action on account of absence of any notification by the Central Government under Rule 138 of C.G.S.T. Rules 2017 and in view of incorrect application of notification issued by the State Government under Rule 138 of U.P.G.S.T. Rules. We are supported in our view not only by the statement made by Dr. Deepti Tripathi as recorded hereinabove, but also by the judgment of the Kerala High Court on the subject as reported in

Operative decision and relief

hereinbove. The impugned actions/directions are accordingly quashed. The preliminary objection of Sri Rahul Shukla is also rejected. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. The seized goods shall be released forthwith on receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 13.04.2018 A.Nigam (Rajan Roy, J.) (Prashant Kumar, J.)

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Proprietor Bhuwan Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others concerns the court considered the gst dispute in satyendra goods transport corporation through proprietor bhuwan kohli v. state of uttar pradesh and others. reported disposition: The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 5536 of 2018.

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 “Disposed” 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: The court considered the GST dispute in Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Proprietor Bhuwan Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. Reported disposition: Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2(53); GST statutory provision - Section 2(9); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3)—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 2(53); GST statutory provision - Section 2(9); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3) and the decision date 2018-04-13; 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 Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Proprietor Bhuwan Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the proceeding is Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 5536 of 2018, and the decision is dated 2018-04-13. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Prashant Kumar,J.; Rajan Roy,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 2(53); GST statutory provision - Section 2(9); GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 129(1); GST statutory provision - Section 129(3). 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 Disposed. 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 and later 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 2(53) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(9) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 3 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 4 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 6 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 67 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 68 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129(3) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• KAMAL ENVIROTECH PVT. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF GST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed

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 text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published