# H/s Halder Entp v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 333
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1297 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/h-s-halder-entp-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49572
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Central Goods and Services Tax
Act,
2017
-
Sections
129(1)(a)
&
129(1)(b) - Circular dated 31.12.2018 -
Petitioner received an order for supply of
dried areca nuts - Goods were loaded with
invoice and E-way bill - Goods iintercepted
in U.P. on 3.10.2023 and detained on
11.10.2023 on the ground that consignor
and consignee were declared non-existent
- On the date of interception, petitioner
was registered under CGST Act, however
registration subsequently suspended on
6.10.2023 - Petitioner applied for release
under Section 129(1)(a) while authorities
determined
penalty
under
Section
129(1)(b) - Issue: Whether the goods
may be released under Section 129(1)(a)
or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Held:
Goods with proper tax invoice and E-way
bill belong to petitioner; Circular dated
31.12.2018
applies
and
petitioner
is
deemed owner; goods to be released
under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act
(Para 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

12 All. H/s Halder Entp. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333

18. We, accordingly, have no
hesitation in holding that the entire process
of reassessment that has been initiated by
the Department holds no water and is
without any legal basis whatsoever.

19. In light of the above, we quash the
notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under
Section 148 of the Act, order passed
rejecting the objection of the petitioner
dated March 3, 2022 and the reassessment
order passed by the Assessing Officer on
March 19, 2022.

20. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.

21. Let a urgent certified copy of this
order, if applied, be provided to the parties.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 333
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ Tax No. 1297 of 2023

H/s Halder Entp. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Aditya Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ankur Agarwal

Civil Law - Central Goods and Services Tax
Act,
2017
-
Sections
129(1)(a)
&
129(1)(b) - Circular dated 31.12.2018 -
Petitioner received an order for supply of
dried areca nuts - Goods were loaded with
invoice and E-way bill - Goods iintercepted
in U.P. on 3.10.2023 and detained on
11.10.2023 on the ground that consignor
and consignee were declared non-existent
- On the date of interception, petitioner
was registered under CGST Act, however
registration subsequently suspended on
6.10.2023 - Petitioner applied for release
under Section 129(1)(a) while authorities
determined
penalty
under
Section
129(1)(b) - Issue: Whether the goods
may be released under Section 129(1)(a)
or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Held:
Goods with proper tax invoice and E-way
bill belong to petitioner; Circular dated
31.12.2018
applies
and
petitioner
is
deemed owner; goods to be released
under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act
(Para 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,
J. & Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. The present writ petition, filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, assails the actions of the respondents
authorities with regard to detention of the
goods and vehicle of the petitioner as well
as subsequent orders passed under Section
129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
"CGST Act").

2. At the outset, we may state that the
counsel on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that he is restricting the prayers
made in the writ petition to the proceeding
initiated under Section 129 of the CGST
Act.

3. The main issue in this writ petition
is whether the goods may be released by
the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or
129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.

4. The main contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner is the owner of the goods and,
therefore, goods are to be released as per
Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act while the
authorities have made the calculation under
Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act by an
order dated October 19, 2023.

5. Before proceeding, one may record
the brief facts of the case. The petitioner
received an order for supply of Dried
Arecanuts from M/s Komolika Trading Co.,
New Delhi. Subsequently, the goods were
loaded on the vehicle and sent along with
invoice and E-way bill. When the goods were
on its way from Calcutta to New Delhi, the
same were intercepted in the State of U.P. on
October 3, 2023. The relevant facts are that
upon physical verification being made, it was
found that there was no discrepancy in
relation to the consignment and the goods
were as per the invoice and E-way bill.
However, it appears that goods have been
detained on October 11, 2023 on the ground
that both the consignor and consignee were
declared as non-existent. It is to be noted that
on the date of interception that is October 3,
2023, the petitioner was having a registration
under the CGST Act. The said registration
was subsequently suspended on October 06,
2023 by the authorities at West Bengal with
effect from September 18, 2023. Upon the
detention being made, the petitioner being the
owner of the goods came forward and sought
for release of the goods under Section
129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. However, the
authorities have determined the penalty to be
paid as per Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST
Act.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that as per the Circular No.76/50/2018-GST
dated 31st December 2018, it has been
clarified by the Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing that if
the invoice or any other specified document
is accompanying the consignment of goods,
then either the consignor or the consignee
should be deemed to be the owner. If the
invoice or any other specified document is
not accompanying the consignment of goods,
then in such cases, the proper officer should
determine who should be declared as the
owner of the goods. The relevant clause is
provided below:

6. Who will be
considered
as
the 'owner of
the goods' for
the purposes of
section 129(1)
of the CGST
Act?
It is clarified that if
the invoice or any
other
specified
document
is
accompanying
the
consignment
of
goods, then either
the consignor or the
consignee should be
deemed to be the
owner. If the invoice
or
any
other
specified document
is not accompanying
the consignment of
goods, then in such
cases,
the
proper
officer
should
determine
who
should be declared
as the owner of the
goods.

7. Counsel for the petitioner further
relies
upon
two
Coordinate
Bench
judgments to buttress his arguments that the
penalty to be imposed when the owner
comes up before the authority is to be
calculated under Section 129(1)(a) and not
under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.

8. Counsel for the respondent
authorities has supported the actions of the
authorities and stated that the actions taken
12 All. H/s Halder Entp. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
335
by the authorities were correct in law, as
the buyer and seller were not having CGST
registration.

9. Upon perusal of the record and
after hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner, we would first like to place on
record the judgment passed by Division
Bench of this Court in M/s Sahil Traders v.
State
of
U.P.
and
another,
2023:/AHC:116953-DB (Coram: Hon'ble
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. and Hon'ble
Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.), wherein it has been
categorically held that Circular dated
December 31, 2018 is applicable and when
the tax invoice and the E-way bill are
produced by the assessee, the goods shall
be treated as belonging to the assessee, who
comes before the authorities as the owner
of the goods and produces the above
documents. The Court further held in such
cases that the security is required to be in
terms of Section 129(1)(a) and not under
Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The
same principle has been followed by the
Division Bench presided over by the then
Chief Justice in M/s Sanjay Sales Agency
v.
State
of
U.P.
and
another,
2023:AHC:193624-DB (Coram: Hon'ble
Printinker
Diwaker, CJ
and Hon'ble
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.).

10. One may look to the relevant
section before dealing with the arguments
placed by the parties. The relevant portion
of Section 129 of the CGST Act is
delineated below:

"129. Detention, seizure and release
of goods and conveyances in transit.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, where any person transports any goods
or stores any goods while they are in transit
in contravention of the provisions of this
Act or the rules made thereunder, all such
goods and conveyance used as a means of
transport for carrying the said goods and
documents relating to such goods and
conveyance shall be liable to detention or
seizure and after detention or seizure, shall
be released,-

(a) on payment of the applicable tax
and penalty equal to one hundred per cent.
of the tax payable on such goods and, in
case of exempted goods, on payment of an
amount equal to two per cent. of the value
of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees,
whichever is less, where the owner of the
goods comes forward for payment of such
tax and penalty;

(b) on payment of the applicable tax
and penalty equal to the fifty per cent. of
the value of the goods reduced by the tax
amount paid thereon and, in case of
exempted goods, on payment of an amount
equal to five per cent. of the value of goods
or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever
is less, where the owner of the goods does
not come forward for payment of such tax
and penalty;"

11. On a bare perusal of the
judgments cited above and on first
principles, it is patently clear that in the
present case, goods were found with proper
tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to the
petitioner. Hence, Circular dated December
31, 2018 would apply and the petitioner
would be deemed to be the owner of the
goods. Ergo, the goods would have to be
released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of
the CGST Act.

12. In light of above, the order
passed by the authorities dated October
19, 2023 is quashed and set aside. The
authorities are directed to carry out the
exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of
the CGST Act within a period of three
weeks from today.
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. As the petitioner has not pressed
for the other prayers in the writ petition, the
same may be pursued by him before the
appropriate forum.

14. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 336
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 65 of 2019

Nagendra Kumar Pandey ...Appellant
Versus
General Manager UCO Bank Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arvind
Kumar Jauharom Meenakshi Singh
Parihar, Prashant Kumar Singh, Udai Pratap

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shrikant Mishra, Avdhesh Shukla, Prashant
Shankar Singh

Held:
Bank employee dismissed for unauthorized
creation of high-value entries in a government
account
using
his
password/ID-Appellant
claimed misuse of credentials by the Branch
Manager and violation of principles of natural
justice-Inquiry Officer found charges provedDisciplinary and Appellate Authorities upheld
dismissal-Court held that as a bank employee,
the appellant had a duty to protect his
ID/password and maintain integrity-Findings of
fact by the disciplinary authorities were based
on full opportunity of hearing-No violation of
natural justice-Dismissal held proportionate to
misconduct.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772

2. Chairman & Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank Vs P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC
364

3. Canara Bank Vs VSK. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC
321

4. M.L. Singla Vs P.N.B., (2018) 18 SCC 21

5.
Division
Bench
judgment
in
Niladri
Chakraborty Vs UCO Bank, Writ-A No. 65358 of
2013, decided on 20.04.2015.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Ms.
Meenakshi Parihar Singh, learned Counsel
for the appellant, Dr. Prashant Shankar
Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the
Bank and Sri Shrikant Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

(2) This intra-court Appeal has been
filed, challenging the judgment and order
dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 162 (SS)
of 2014, Nagendra Kumar Pandey v.
General
Manager/Appellate
Authority,
UCO Bank and others, wherein the writ
petition
preferred
by
the
appellantpetitioner has been dismissed.

(3) The annals of the case are that the
appellant/petitioner had joined on the post
of Class IV in the UCO Bank on
17.01.1984 and thereafter he was promoted
on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on
01.05.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted
on the post of Head Cashier on 04.09.2009
and posted at Renukoot where he stayed
there till 08.12.2009 and subsequently was