# Hemant Taneja v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1793
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1031 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hemant-taneja-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50941
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act,
2017- Section 129(3) - detention, seizure
and penalty - registered trader - trading of
taxable goods - goods in transit - vehicle
intercepted
-
e-Invoice
and
e-Way
Bill
generated prior to interception - documents
available in digital mode - digital copies
produced by driver - hard copies produced by
representative at the time of inspection -
physical verification of goods - authenticity of
documents not disputed - requirement of
signature dispensed with in case of digital
invoice - statutory duty of revenue authorities
to verify documents from portal - failure of
revenue authorities to verify - no intent to
evade tax - no irregularity in bills - no cause for
detention, seizure or imposition of penalty -
payment of penalty to secure release does not
disentitle assessee from filing appeal - appeal
under Section 107 maintainable - penalty
imposed under Section 129(3) not justified -
orders passed by Mobile Squad and appellate
authority liable to be quashed - amount
deposited liable to be refunded .
Writ petition allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

3 All. Hemant Taneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1793
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1793
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ Tax No. 1031 of 2023

Hemant Taneja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Damodar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act,
2017- Section 129(3) - detention, seizure
and penalty - registered trader - trading of
taxable goods - goods in transit - vehicle
intercepted
-
e-Invoice
and
e-Way
Bill
generated prior to interception - documents
available in digital mode - digital copies
produced by driver - hard copies produced by
representative at the time of inspection -
physical verification of goods - authenticity of
documents not disputed - requirement of
signature dispensed with in case of digital
invoice - statutory duty of revenue authorities
to verify documents from portal - failure of
revenue authorities to verify - no intent to
evade tax - no irregularity in bills - no cause for
detention, seizure or imposition of penalty -
payment of penalty to secure release does not
disentitle assessee from filing appeal - appeal
under Section 107 maintainable - penalty
imposed under Section 129(3) not justified -
orders passed by Mobile Squad and appellate
authority liable to be quashed - amount
deposited liable to be refunded .
Writ petition allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:
1. Hindustan Steel & Cement v. Asstt. State Tax
Officer, State GST Department, Kozhikode, 2022
(65) G.S.T.L. 133 (Ker.).
2. M/s Galaxy Enterprises v. State of U.P. and 2
others, Writ Tax No. 1412 of 2022.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Ajay
Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi
Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax,
Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad in purported
exercise of powers under Section 129 (3) of
the GST Act has imposed a penalty of
Rs.1,83,442/-. The order of the penalty was
carried in appeal by the petitioner.

3. The appellate authority/Additional
Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad,
Unit-7, Ghaziabad by the impugned order
dated 09.05.2023 upheld the findings of the
authority of first instance and confirmed
the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated
09.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 /
Additional
Commissioner,
State
Tax,
Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad and the
order dated 04.01.2023, the petitioner has
assailed the same in the writ petition.

5. The petitioner is a proprietor
running under the name and style of 'M/s.
J.S. Enterprises' in trading of taxable goods
falling under Chapter-74 of the Goods and
Service Tariff Act.

6. The petitioner is duly registered as
a trader under the GST Act and has been
issued a GST Identification Number i.e.
1794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
07AECPT6934N1ZU by the competent
authority.

7. The petitioner received an order
from one M/s. Vaishnavi Electronics,
Ghaziabad for supply of Copper Clad
Laminte, etc. Upon receipt of the said order
the
petitioner
prepared
an
e-Invoice
No.766/2022-23 dated 04.01.2023 at 10.10
a.m.
The
e-Way
Bill
bearing
No.721309051066 dated 04.01.2023 was
auto generated at 10.13 a.m. after the
petitioner had got the aforesaid invoice
registered on the common GST portal.

8. According to the petitioner, both
the e-Invoice as well as e-Way Bill were
provided to the vehicle driver in the digital
mode. The vehicle proceeded to its
destination after the goods were loaded and
the driver was provided with the necessary
documentation. When the vehicle was
intercepted by the revenue authorities, the
driver produced e-Invoice as well as e-Way
Bill. However, the revenue authorities
conducted the physical inspection of the
goods under transportation. At the time of
the physical verification of the goods the
representative
of
the
petitioner
firm
appeared before the revenue authorities and
presented hard copies of the e-Invoice
No.766/2022-23 dated 04.01.2023 and eWay
Bill
No.721309051066
dated
04.01.2023. The representative of the
petitioner firm sought to demonstrate that
the goods being transported were fully
supported
by
valid
documentation
contemplated
under
the
GST
Act.
However, the revenue authorities passed a
detention order detaining the vehicle and
the goods.

9. Thereafter, the show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner on 04.01.2023.

10. The show cause notice records
that the vehicle driver had produced a tax
invoice No.766/2022-23 dated 04.01.2023,
but the said tax invoice did not bear the
signatures of the authorized signatory.
Further, the driver of the vehicle was failed
to produce other valid documents. In this
manner according to the show cause notice,
the goods were transported without the
valid and complete documentation in
violation of relevant provisions of the GST
Act. The show cause notice also records
that at the time of inspection the
representative of the petitioner was present
and had duly produced e-Invoice No.766
dated 04.01.2023 and generated the same at
10.10 AM. and also e-Way Bill dated
04.01.2023 generated same at 10.13 AM.
According to the show cause notice further
enquiries revealed that the said e-Invoice
and e-Way Bill so produced disclosed the
goods which were being transported.
However, in view of the fact that the said
documents were not produced at the time of
interception of the vehicle violation of
provisions of Section 138 of the GST Rules
was made out and appropriate action was
liable to be taken.

11. The petitioner was keen to honour
the business transaction and hence paid the
penalty to get the goods released for
onward transportation to the buyer. The
order dated 04.01.2023 purportedly passed
under Section 129(3) of the GST Act also
finds that the petitioner had produced the
said e-Invoice as well as e-Way Bill which
clearly disclosed the goods which were
being transported and were intercepted.
However, since the driver of the vehicle
had
failed
to
produce
the
relevant
documents at the time of interception, the
violation of provisions of the GST Act read
with Rules was established and penalty was
liable to be imposed. The impugned order
3 All. Hemant Taneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1795
thereafter imposes the aforesaid penalty in
purported exercise of Section 129(1)(a) of
the GST Act and penalty was imposed.

12. The petitioner carried the said
order in appeal before the appellate
authority by instituting an appeal under
Section 107 of the GST Act.

"Section
107.
Appeals
to
Appellate Authority

...........

(6) No appeal shall be filed under
sub-section (1), unless the appellant has
paid-

(a) in full, such part of the
amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and
penalty arising from the impugned order, as
is admitted by him; and

(b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of
the remaining amount of tax in dispute
arising from the said order, in relation to
which the appeal has been filed:

[PROVIDED that no appeal shall
be filed against an order under sub-section
(3) of section 129, unless a sum equal to
twenty-five per cent of the penalty has been
paid by the appellant.]

(7) Where the appellant has paid
the amount under sub-section (6), the
recovery proceedings for the balance
amount shall be deemed to be stayed."

13. The consistent case of the
petitioner before the appellate authority as
well as this Court is that the driver had
produced the e-Invoice as well as e-Way
Bill which were stored in his mobile
number. However, the authorities failed to
verify the same and initiated the impugned
proceedings. Further, it is an admitted case
that the hard copies of the tax Invoice as
well as e-Way Bill were duly produced
when the representative of the petitioner
appeared before the Mobile Squad of the
Revenue
Department
during
the
proceedings.

14. The impugned order while
upholding the order of penalty reiterates the
reasoning in the order passed by the Mobile
Squad of the revenue authorities of the first
instance.

15.

The
appellate
authority/respondent No.3 in the impugned
order dated 09.05.2023 has recorded these
findings. The petitioner had failed to
generate and download the e-Way Bill
before
transporting
the
goods.
The
petitioner failed to produce any document
apart from tax invoice at the time of the
interception of the vehicle. The order
further notices the submission of the
appellant/petitioner that the e-Invoice as
well as e-Way Bill were uploaded in the
mobile of the driver of the vehicle. The echallan was digitally signed by the
petitioner. Hence, the appellate authority
records his submission to the effect that
since the digital documents were produced
hard copies with signatures were not
required to be presented to the officers.

16. On the footing of the aforesaid
discussion, the appellate authority in the
impugned order has found that the
appellant/petitioner did not generate e-Way
Bill with a view to evade tax and thus
violated the provisions of the GST Act read
with GST Rules and was liable to pay the
penalty. The appeal was thus rejected.

17. Shri Praveen Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that:

I. The petitioner had generated
the relevant documents, namely, e-Invoice
and e-Way Bill as per the provisions of the
GST Act.
1796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

II. The said documents were
produced before the Revenue Authorities at
the time of inspection of the vehicle.

III. The petitioner was not intent
to evade tax.

18. Shri Rishi Kumar, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits
that:

I. The driver of the vehicle was
not in a possession of the forms, and hence
the production of the aforesaid forms at the
time of inspection is of no avail.

II. The intent to evade tax is
established.

19. For adjudicating the submissions
made at the Bar, it would be apposite to
reproduce
and
reflect
some
relevant
provisions of the GST Act. The detention,
seizure
and
release
of
goods
is
contemplated in Section 68 read with
Section 129 of the GST Act which are
reproduced heredunder:

"Section 68 - Inspection of
goods in movement

(1) The 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.

(2) The details of documents
required to be carried under sub-section (1)
shall be validated in such manner as may
be prescribed.

(3)
Where
any
conveyance
referred to in sub-section (1) is intercepted
by the proper officer at any place, he may
require the person in charge of the said
conveyance to produce the documents
prescribed under the said sub-section and
devices for verification, and the said person
shall be liable to produce the documents
and devices and also allow the inspection
of goods.

Section 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 two 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;

(c) upon furnishing a security
equivalent to the amount payable under
clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and
manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such goods or
conveyance shall be detained or seized
without serving an order of detention or
seizure on the person transporting the
goods.
3 All. Hemant Taneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1797

(2) The provisions of sub-section
(6) of section 67 shall, mutatis mutandis,
apply for detention and seizure of goods
and conveyances.

(3) The proper officer detaining
or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue
a notice specifying the tax and penalty
payable and thereafter, pass an order for
payment of tax and penalty under clause (a)
or clause (b) or clause (c).

(4)
[No
penalty],
shall
be
determined under sub-section (3) without
giving the person concerned an opportunity
of being heard.

(5) On payment of amount
referred in sub-section (1), all proceedings
in respect of the notice specified in subsection (3) shall be deemed to be
concluded.

(6) Where the person transporting
any goods or the owner of the goods fails to
pay the amount of tax and penalty as
provided in sub-section (1) within fifteen
days from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order passed under sub-section (3), the
good or conveyance so detained or seized
shall be liable to be sold or disposed of
otherwise, in such manner and within such
time as may be prescribed, to recover the
penalty payable under sub-section (3):

Provided that the conveyance
shall be released on payment by the
transporter of penalty under sub-section (3)
of one lakh rupees, whichever is less;

Provided further that where the
detained or seized goods are perishable or
hazardous in nature or are likely to
depreciate in value with passage of time,
the said period of fifteen days may be
reduced by the proper officer."

20. The documents which are required
to be carried by the persons incharge of the
conveyance are set out in Rule 138A (1),
(2) and (3). The provisions/Rules insofar as
they are relevant to the controversy are
reproduced as under:

"Rule 138A. Documents and
devices to be carried by a person in
charge of a conveyance.

(1) The person in charge of a
conveyance shall carry-

(a) the invoice or bill of supply or
delivery challan, as the case may be; and

(b) a copy of the e-way bill in
physical form or the e-way bill number in
electronic form or mapped to a Radio
Frequency Identification Device embedded
on to the conveyance in such manner as
may be notified by the Commissioner:

Provided that nothing contained
in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall apply in
case of movement of goods by rail or by air
or vessel.

Provided further that in case of
imported goods, the person in charge of a
conveyance shall also carry a copy of the
bill of entry filed by the importer of such
goods and shall indicate the number and
date of the bill of entry in Part A of FORM
GST EWB-01.

(2) In case, invoice is issued in
the manner prescribed under sub-rule (4) of
rule 48, the Quick Reference (QR) code
having an embedded Invoice Reference
Number (IRN) in it, may be produced
electronically, for verification by the proper
officer in lieu of the physical copy of such
tax invoice.

(3) Where the registered person
uploads the invoice under sub-rule (2), the
information in Part A of FORM GST
EWB-01 shall be auto-populated by the
common portal on the basis of the
information furnished in FORM GST INV1.

(4) The Commissioner may, by
notification, require a class of transporters
to obtain a unique Radio Frequency
1798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Identification Device and get the said
device embedded on to the conveyance and
map the e-way bill to the Radio Frequency
Identification
Device
prior
to
the
movement of goods.

(5)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1),
where circumstances so warrant, the
Commissioner may, by notification, require
the person-in-charge of the conveyance to
carry the following documents instead of
the e-way bill

(a) tax invoice or bill of supply or
bill of entry; or

(b) a delivery challan, where the
goods are transported for reasons other than
by way of supply."

21. The verification of documents
which provides for issuing invoices states
thus:

"Rule 48 - Manner of issuing
invoice

..................

(4) The invoice shall be prepared
by such class of registered persons as may
be notified by the Government, on the
recommendations of the Council, by
including
such
particulars
contained
inFORM GST INV-01after obtaining
anInvoice Reference Numberby uploading
information contained therein on the
Common
Goods
and
Services
Tax
Electronic Portal in such manner and
subject to such conditions and restrictions
as may be specified in the notification.

"Provided
that
the
Commissioner
may,
on
the
recommendations of the Council, by
notification, exempt a person or a class of
registered persons from issuance of invoice
under this sub-rule for a specified period,
subject to such conditions and restrictions
as
may
be
specified
in
the
said
notification".

...............

(6) The provisions of sub-rules
(1) and (2) shall not apply to an invoice
prepared in the manner specified in subrule (4)."

22. The verification of documents and
responsibilities of the revenue authorities
are stated in Rule 138 (b) which is
reproduced as under:

"Rule
138B.
Verification
of
documents and conveyances-

(1) The Commissioner or an
officer empowered by him in this behalf
may authorise the proper officer to
intercept any conveyance to verify the eway bill or the e-way bill number in
physical form for all interState and
intraState movement of goods.

(2) The Commissioner shall get
Radio Frequency Identification Device
readers installed at places where the
verification of movement of goods is
required to be carried out and verification
of movement of vehicles shall be done
through such device readers where the
eway bill has been mapped with the said
device.

(3) The physical verification of
conveyances shall be carried out by the
proper officer as authorised by the
Commissioner or an officer empowered by
him in this behalf:

Provided that on receipt of
specific information on evasion of tax,
physical
verification
of
a
specific
conveyance can also be carried out by any
other carried out by any officer after
obtaining
necessary
approval
of
the
Commissioner or an officer authorised by
him in this behalf."
3 All. Hemant Taneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1799

23. The aforesaid statutory scheme
discloses the following the requirements
which are relevant to the controversy:

I. While transporting goods for
purposes of trade, the driver and or the
owner should be in possession of an eInvoice as well as e-Way Bill.

II. The assessee has an option to
produce physical or digital copies of the
aforesaid documents.

III. The procedure for generating
the digital documents is spelt out in the
aforesaid provisions.

IV. The e-Invoice is to be
generated in the manner provided under
Rule 48(4)(6) of the GST Act.

24. The e-Invoice in Form GST
Invoice-I is auto populated / generated on
the common platform after e-Invoice is
uploaded on the said portal in the manner
prescribed in the said Rules. Further Part-B
of the e-Way bill has been uploaded after
filing up the relevant details of the vehicle
transporting the goods. In the facts of this
case it is not disputed that the e-Way Bill
contained the complete details in Part-A
and Part-B. Most importantly once these
documents are produced, statutory duty is
cast upon the revenue authorities to verify
the authenticity of the said documents. All
the documents (soft copies/e-invoices & eway bills) are in the official reach of the
department. Hence, the verification is a
very simple procedure which is required to
be executed by the revenue authorities.
Evidently in this case they failed to do so.

 25. Under Chapter VI of the C.G. &
S.T. Rules, 2017 relevant parts of the Rule
46 which reads Tax invoice are extracted
hereunder:

"Rule 46 (q). signature or
digital signature of the supplier or his
authorised representative."

26. From the preceding discussion,
the following facts are established.

I. Firstly, even as per the case of
the revenue the driver of the vehicle was in
possession of a digital tax invoice without
signatures of the authorised signatory. The
objection is misconceived, inasmuch as, the
requirement of signatures is dispensed with
as regards digital invoice by virtue of
operation of the 5th proviso to Rule 46 of
the C.G. & S.T. Rules, 2017 quoted above.

II. Secondly, it is common
ground between the parties that the
petitioner had produced authentic tax
invoice and e-Way Bill at the time of
inspection of the goods. Incidentally the
seizure of the goods, inspection of the eWay Bill carrying the goods, production of
requisite documents by the petitioner and
the imposition of the penalty happened on
the same day i.e. 04.01.2023.

III. Thirdly, once the authentic
documents have been produced to the
satisfaction of the authorities, there was no
cause for imposition of penalty and no case
for admit to evade tax is made out.

IV. The authenticity of the said
documents is not disputed.

27. The case of the petitioner is
consistent that the driver was carrying
digital copies of the tax invoice as well as
e-Way Bill on his mobile number. The
Revenue did not verify the digital device of
the driver. If the assessee always had
relevant documents in his favour, it stands
to reason that there was no cause for him
not to provide the digital copy of the e-Way
Bill to the driver when the goods were
being transported. After the driver had
1800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
produced the digital copy of the tax
invoice, it was the responsibility of the
revenue to verify the same from the portal.
The portal also contains the e-Way Bill
which is auto populated after the e-Invoice
uploaded. Evidently the Revenue failed to
do so. The revenue cannot fasten the
penalty upon the tax payers for its own
default.

28. The argument on behalf of the
revenue to the effect that once the demand
raised on the assessee was satisfied by
making of payment, the assessee could not
carry the order of penalty in appeal and is
liable to be rejected.

29. The assessee under Section 129(1)
of the GST Act, 2017 has an option either
to provide security or to make payment and
satisfy the demand in full. However, the
mere fact that the assessee has made
payment will not disentitle him for carrying
the order imposing the penalty in appeal.

30. The narrative can now be fortified
by authorities in point. The Kerala High
Court in Hindustan Steel & Cement v.
Asstt. State Tax Officer, State GST
Department,
Kozhikode1
while
considering the same issue held as under:

"5. ....A reading of sub-section
(3) of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST
Acts, the provisions of Rule 142 referred to
above and the provisions of the circular,
cumulatively, compel me to hold that
whether or not a person opts to make
payment under section 129(1)(a) or to
provide security under Section 129(1)(c),
the responsibility of the officer to pass an
order under sub-section (3) of Section 129
and
to
upload
a
summary
of
the
order/demand in Form DRC-07 continues.
The provisions of sub-section (5) or
Section 129 which were pointed out by the
learned Senior Government Pleader only
contemplate
that
the
procedure
for
detention on seizure of goods or documents
or conveyances come to an end and it is
always open to the person who suffers
proceedings under 129 of the CGST/SGST
Acts to challenge those proceedings if he
feels that the demand has been illegally
raised on him. This can be the only
reasonable interpretation that can be placed
on the provisions referred to above. Any
other interpretation would clearly violate
Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
Further, Section 107 of the CGST Act is
widely worded and provides that any
person aggrieved by any decision, or order
passed under the CGST/SGST Acts or
Union Territory Goods and Services Tax
Act, by an adjudicating authority, may
appeal to such appellate authority as may
be prescribed, within three months from the
date on which such decision or order is
communicated to such a person. It is
obvious that the learned counsel for the
petitioners in these cases is correct and
contenting that whether or not a payment is
made under Section 129(1)(a) or security is
provided under Section 129 (1) (c), the
person who is the subject matter of
proceedings under section 129 of the CGST
Act has the right to challenge those
proceedings, culminating in an order under
sub-section (3) of Section 129, before the
duly constituted Appellate Authority under
Section 107 of that Act. The fact that the
culmination of proceedings in respect of a
person who seeks to make payment of Tax
and Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) does
not result in the generation of a summary of
an order under Form DRC-07 cannot result
in the right of the person to file an appeal
under Section 107 being deprived. The fact
that the system does not generate a demand
or that the system does not contemplate the
3 All. M/s Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1801
filing of an appeal without a demand does
not mean that the intention of the
legislature was different."

31. The aforesaid judgment squarely
applicable to the facts of the case and the
appeal is held to be maintainable.

32. This Court in M/s Galaxy
Enterprises v. State of U.P. and 2 others2
held that if rectified documents were
produced before the authorities before the
seizure order was passed, the same were
liable to be considered.

33. The case of the petitioner stands
on a better footing.

34. Since all the documents have been
admittedly produced before the authorities
at the time of inspection, there was no
cause for detention, seizure or imposition
of the penalty as has been done by the
authorities in this case.

35. It is noteworthy that the revenue is
not challenged the authenticity of the bills
or the fact that they were not duly filled it
or the details were absent in the said bills.
No irregularity in the bills have been
pointed out on behalf of the revenue.

36. The bills contained all relevant
details of the goods and the tax are liable to
be paid.

37. The impugned order dated
04.01.2023
whereby
the
Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile
Squad-VII, Ghaziabad as well as the order
dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent
No.3/learned appellate authority/Additional
Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad,
Unit-7, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed
and are quashed.

38. The amount deposited shall be
forthwith refunded to the petitioner in
accordance with law.

39. The writ petition (tax) is allowed.

40. The case at hand reflects that not
only the mobile squad had misdirected
itself in law but the appellate authorities
have failed to redeem the errors. The Court
has no hesitation to observe that a honest
tax payer in the facts of this case has been
unnecessarily harassed by the revenue
authorities. The Court will say no further.
However, it is for the revenue authorities to
ensure that the officers are properly trained
and alerted to the relevant provisions of
law.

41. It is open to the revenue
authorities to conduct regular courses for
upgrading the domain knowledge of the
officers in the field and the appellate
authorities
also
to
circulate
relevant
judgments on a regular basis to the
officials.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ Tax No. 1034 of 2019

M/s Nokia Solutions & Networks India
Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ninshant Mishra, Sri Tanmay Saadh

Counsel for the Respondent: