# M/s Kamakhya Trader v. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 328
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-28
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1386 of 2023
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-kamakhya-trader-v-addl-commissioner-grade-2-anr-53123
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129 - Writ
of Certiorari - Goods in Transit - Physical
Verification - MOV-04 Report - Tax Invoices - EWay Bills - Change of Stand by Revenue -
Consistency in Administrative Action.

Held:

The petitioner challenged an appellate order
dated 10.11.2023 [Appeal No. 0513/2023,
Assessment Year 2023-24] upholding a demand
issued after the interception of goods in transit
from Guwahati to Delhi via Uttar Pradesh on
21.09.2023 in Amroha. At interception, the
petitioner produced valid tax invoices, e-
4 All. M/s Kamakhya Trader Vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr
329
invoices, e-way bills, and bilty (GR), and the
driver's
statement
in
MOV-01
confirmed
document accuracy. The physical verification
report (MOV-04) noted no discrepancy between
the goods and accompanying documents.
However, the authorities later alleged the goods
differed from those in the documents, a stand
not supported by MOV-04. The Court held that
once physical verification in MOV-04 confirmed
no discrepancy, the revenue could not change
its stand or introduce new grounds at a later
stage, as this violated settled law against
shifting administrative positions. Relying on
*Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.*, Writ Tax No.
1425 of 2023, the Court quashed the impugned
order, emphasizing that revenue cannot detain
goods or issue demands based on inconsistent
grounds
post-verification.
Any
amount
deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be
refunded within three weeks.

Writ petition allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
however, in view of the Notification dated
21.07.2022 which came into effect from
01.03.2020 the said time limit specified
under Sub-section 10 of Section 73 for
issuance of order under Sub-section 9 of
Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, for
recovery of taxes not paid or short paid or
of input tax credit wrongly availed or
utilized, in respect of a tax period for the
financial year 2017-18, stood excluded up
to the 30th day of September, 2023 and by
the subsequent notification of the State
Government dated 24.04.2023 which has
been given effect from 31.03.2023 the said
time limit stood extended till 31.12.2023
for the financial year 2017-18.

6. In the case at hand, the impugned
order has been passed on 13.12.2023,
therefore, it has been passed within the
time limit as extended by the Notifications
referred hereinabove. The said notifications
are not under challenge.

7. The aforesaid notification dated
21.07.2022 was not brought to the notice of
the Court while passing the order in Writ
Tax No. 264 of 2024 otherwise the result
may have been different.

8. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State says that a review application is
proposed to be filed in said Writ Tax No.
264 of 2024 and in other similar matters
where the benefit of the said judgment
has been granted.

9. So far as the facts of the present
case are concerned, the impugned order
of assessment dated 13.12.2023 is not
barred by time, therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable as remedy of
appeal is prescribed against such an
order.

10. The petitioner has not brought the
said Circular on record.

11. In view of the above, the writ
petition is dismissed.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 328
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 1386 of 2023

M/s Kamakhya Trader ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129 - Writ
of Certiorari - Goods in Transit - Physical
Verification - MOV-04 Report - Tax Invoices - EWay Bills - Change of Stand by Revenue -
Consistency in Administrative Action.

Held:

The petitioner challenged an appellate order
dated 10.11.2023 [Appeal No. 0513/2023,
Assessment Year 2023-24] upholding a demand
issued after the interception of goods in transit
from Guwahati to Delhi via Uttar Pradesh on
21.09.2023 in Amroha. At interception, the
petitioner produced valid tax invoices, e-
4 All. M/s Kamakhya Trader Vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr
329
invoices, e-way bills, and bilty (GR), and the
driver's
statement
in
MOV-01
confirmed
document accuracy. The physical verification
report (MOV-04) noted no discrepancy between
the goods and accompanying documents.
However, the authorities later alleged the goods
differed from those in the documents, a stand
not supported by MOV-04. The Court held that
once physical verification in MOV-04 confirmed
no discrepancy, the revenue could not change
its stand or introduce new grounds at a later
stage, as this violated settled law against
shifting administrative positions. Relying on
*Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.*, Writ Tax No.
1425 of 2023, the Court quashed the impugned
order, emphasizing that revenue cannot detain
goods or issue demands based on inconsistent
grounds
post-verification.
Any
amount
deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be
refunded within three weeks.

Writ petition allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. *Jitendra Kumar Vs St. of U.P.*, Writ Tax No.
1425 of 2023, (2024) AHC 56789 - Revenue
cannot change its stand or supplement grounds
after initial action; detention based on invalid or
inconsistent grounds is unlawful.

Observation:

The Court observed that the MOV-04 physical
verification report, prepared after due inspection
on 22.09.2023, confirmed the goods matched
the tax invoices, e-invoices, e-way bills, and
bilty,
with
no
discrepancies
noted.
The
respondents' subsequent claim of differing
goods was unsupported by evidence and
contradicted the manual entries in MOV-04,
which required deliberate input by the officer.
The failure to address MOV-04 findings in the
counter affidavit further weakened the revenue's
case. The Court stressed that administrative
actions, such as detention or demand, must be
consistent with initial findings, and any volteface causes prejudice to the assessee.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order
dated 10.11.2023 quashed; refund of deposited
amount ordered within three weeks.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.S.
Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
10.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.1
in Appeal No.0513/2023, Assessment Year
2023-24.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the goods in question was in
transit from Guwahati, Assam to Delhi and
while passing through the State of U.P., the
same were intercepted by the respondent
no.2 on 21.09.2023 in District- Amroha. At
the time of interception, all documents
were produced i.e. tax invoices, E-invoices
and E-waybills and Bilties (GR) before the
respondent no.2 and the statement of the
driver of the vehicle was recorded in MOV01 issued on 22.09.2023, which shows that
all the documents were found to be correct,
a copy of which has been annexed as
Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

4. He further submits that in the
MOV-04 i.e. the physical verification
report, in the column of description of
goods as per the invoice and description of
goods in the conveyance was noted and no
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
difference as per the invoices and physical
verification was pointed out, but thereafter,
a somersault was taken by the authority that
the goods were different than mentioned in
the accompanying documents. He further
submits that once the goods were verified
physically and after getting the details of
the goods mentioned in the accompanying
tax invoices and when no discrepancy was
found in the physical verification as
mentioned in MOV-04, at a later stage, the
authorities cannot take a different stand. On
the said basis, the demand was issued
against which an appeal was filed, which
was also dismissed without considering the
material available on record.

5. He further submits that even in the
counter affidavit, not a word has been
whispered about the MOV-04 while noting
the goods in conveyance as no difference
was found in the accompanying documents.
He next submits that the authorities cannot
be permitted to take a different stand at a
later stage in spite of being no difference to
be found at the time of inspection.

6. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel supports the
impugned order.

7. Upon hearing the counsel for the
parties, the Court has perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the goods in
question were accompanied not only with
the tax invoices, E-way bill, but also E-tax
invoices, e-way bills as well as G.R.
(bilties) and the statement of the driver of
the vehicle was also recorded in MOV-01,
a copy of which has been annexed as
Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

9. Further, the MOV-04 was also
issued after the physical verification of the
goods in question, a copy of which has
been annexed as Annexure No. 4 of this
writ petition.

10. The perusal of the MOV-04 shows
that in the description of goods as per the
invoices including H.S.N. Code and
description of goods in conveyance, no
difference was pointed out. Once the goods
in question, on the physical verification,
was found as per the goods disclosed in the
invoices, the revenue cannot be permitted
to
completely
change
its
stand
by
supplementing
different
grounds.
The
argument raised by Sri R.S. Pandey,
A.C.S.C. that as soon as H.S.N. Code is fed
in the description of goods, the same goods
appear in the description of goods as per
the invoice (in Column of MOV-04) and
therefore, the State authorities are not in a
position to correct the field, and thus the
description was found differently in the
column
of
description
of
goods
in
conveyance could not be filled correctly.

11. On a pointed query put to the State
that as soon as H.S.N. Code is fed in the
column of description of goods as per
invoice, whether the goods appear as per
the code or it has to be fed, the answer was
in negative i.e. the goods have to be fed
manually.

12. A similar question was asked with
regard to the filling of description of goods
in conveyance in Column IV, he accepts
that it has filled manually.

13. Once on the verification report i.e.
MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer
concerned, after due verification, the
authorities
cannot
be
permitted
to
completely change its stand or further
permitted to supplement by different
reasons or grounds, which were not taken
4 All. M/s Merino Industries Ltd. Hapur, U.P. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
331
or mentioned while preparing the physical
verification report in MOV-04.

14. The purpose of filling MOV-04, at
the time of physical verification, is to find
the correctness of the goods in transit from
the accompanying documents and if the
officer while preparing the MOV-04 did
not find any change or difference in goods
that of mentioned in the accompanying
documents, the same cannot be permitted at
a later stage for taking a different stand, as
mentioned in the present case.

15. That this Court in the case of
Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
Another (Writ Tax No.1425 of 2023) in
para no. 5, 6 & 7 has held as under:-

"5. It is trite law, settled by a
catena of Supreme Court judgments, that
the Revenue cannot beat around the bush
and keep changing the goal post at each
stage. Once the Revenue had taken a
particular stand, the same cannot be
completely changed and/or supplemented
by a different reason or ground.

6. In the present case, it is clear
that the detention was made on the ground
that the goods were not accompanied by
valid documents. However, when the
show-cause notice was issued, there is
no whisper of any invalid document
whatsoever. In fact, the stand was
completely changed by the Revenue and
this volte face cannot be countenanced
by this Court. The detention of goods
causes serious prejudice to an assessee
and the same can only be done on the
basis of specific, valid and reasonable
grounds. In the present case, it is quite
obvious that at the time of detention,
the ground that was stated by the
Revenue was incorrect. More so, there
was no reason for the Revenue to have
detained the goods and the consequential
actions that followed, were obviously
vitiated.

7. In light of the findings above,
we are of the view that the detention order
and the subsequent show-cause notice were
bad in law, and accordingly, both are
quashed and set-aside."

16. In view of the facts as stated above
as well as in the light of the aforesaid
judgment, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and the same is
hereby quashed.

17. The writ petition is allowed,
accordingly.

18. Any amount deposited by the
petitioner during the pendency of the
present litigation, shall be refunded to the
petitioner within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 331
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ Tax No. 1406 of 2025

M/s Merino Industries Ltd., Hapur, U.P.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Prakash Mathur

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ankur Agarwal (S.C.)