Case Details: Aviraj Trading vs. State of U.P. - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 87 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Saumitra Dayal Singh & Vivek Saran, JJ.
- Rishi Raj Kapoor for the Petitioner.
- Arvind Kumar Mishra, Learned counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the penalty order passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The petitioner’s goods and conveyance were detained during transit, and a penalty was imposed. It was submitted that at the time of detention, the goods were accompanied by a valid e-way bill and tax invoice. All requisite documents were produced promptly after the detention of the goods, and there was no dispute regarding the owner’s identity or registration status. Despite these facts, the penalty was imposed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 129(1)(b) applies only in cases where the owner of the goods does not come forward, whereas Section 129(1)(a) governs situations where the owner is identifiable, and the goods are accompanied by proper documents. The Court held that the goods were supported by a valid e-way bill and tax invoice clearly indicating the registered owner, and the invocation of Section 129(1)(b) was legally unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned penalty order and directed the authorities to determine the penalty strictly in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with the Uttar Pradesh GST Act.
List of Cases Referred to
- Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 231/[2024] 101 GST 313/80 GSTL 357 (All) (para 4).
The post Penalty Under Sec. 129(1)(b) Invalid for Registered Owner | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
