# M/s Monotech Systems Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-11
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1689 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-monotech-systems-limited-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51173
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Tax Law - Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 - Section 129 - Detention, seizure
and release of goods and conveyances in
transit - Against order of Additional
Commissioner - Technical breaches -
Impugned order arises out of proceedings
after interception of vehicle carrying
offending goods - Revenue authorities
upon finding that E-Way Bill was not
filled, asked assessee/petitioner to show
cause and after physical inspection of
goods no discrepancy found. (Para 2)

Contention by assessee that goods in
vehicle were fully reconciled with E-Way
Bill - Non filling of part of E-Way Bill
would not ipso facto attract proceedings
u/s 129, GST Act. (Para 4)

When substantial compliance of provisions
was disclosed and physical inspection of
goods tallies with goods declared in EWay Bill and no intent of tax evasion was
made out, proceedings under aforesaid
section became vitiated - Thus, impugned
order quashed. (Para 7)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.(Writ Tax No.- 637 of 2018)

## Text

11 All. M/s Monotech Systems Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
Section 10 of Section 73 as applicable for
the financial year 2017-18 and therefore the
impugned orders are beyond jurisdiction
being barred by the time provided in the
said provision, therefore, we allow the writ
petition and quash the impugned orders
dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023 issued by
the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax,
Sector 05, Lucknow.

9.
Consequences
shall
follow,
accordingly. The accounts of the petitioner
which have been freezed shall be defreezed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ Tax No. 1689 of 2024

M/s Monotech Systems Limited
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhinav Mehrotra, Satya Vrata Mehrotra,
Utkarsh Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Tax Law - Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 - Section 129 - Detention, seizure
and release of goods and conveyances in
transit - Against order of Additional
Commissioner - Technical breaches -
Impugned order arises out of proceedings
after interception of vehicle carrying
offending goods - Revenue authorities
upon finding that E-Way Bill was not
filled, asked assessee/petitioner to show
cause and after physical inspection of
goods no discrepancy found. (Para 2)

Contention by assessee that goods in
vehicle were fully reconciled with E-Way
Bill - Non filling of part of E-Way Bill
would not ipso facto attract proceedings
u/s 129, GST Act. (Para 4)

When substantial compliance of provisions
was disclosed and physical inspection of
goods tallies with goods declared in EWay Bill and no intent of tax evasion was
made out, proceedings under aforesaid
section became vitiated - Thus, impugned
order quashed. (Para 7)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.(Writ Tax No.- 637 of 2018)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. The impugned order arises out of
proceedings which were instituted after
interception of the vehicle carrying the
offending goods. The revenue authorities
upon finding that the E-Way Bill was not
filled asked the assessee to show cause.
After physical inspection of the goods no
discrepancy was found.

3.
The
goods
tallied
with
the
description in the E-Way Bill.

4. The assessee on show cause resisted
the proceedings by filing a response.
According to the assessee there was no
intent to evade the tax. The goods in the
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vehicle were fully reconciled with the EWay bill. Non filling of the part of E-Way
Bill would not ipso facto trigger the
proceedings under Section 129 of the GST
Act in the facts of this case.

5. The adjudicating authority as well
as the appellate authority negatived the
submissions made on behalf of the
assessee and passed the impugned order.

6. The facts which are admitted and
disclosed from the records are these.
There was no discrepancy in the goods
which were physically found at the time
of inspection and details of goods
recorded in the E-Way Bill available with
the driver of the vehicle. The authorities
below have not found any intent to evade
tax.

7. This Court has set its face against
initiation of proceedings under Section
129 of GST Act in the wake of mere
technical breaches. When substantial
compliance of the provisions is disclosed
and when the physical inspection of
goods tallies with the goods declared in
the E-Way Bill and no intent of tax
evasion is made out, proceedings under
Section 129 of GST Act become vitiated.

8. In VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Vs State of U.P. and Another (Writ
Tax No.- 637 of 2018) this Court has
held as under:

"We are in full agreement with
the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner and after perusal of the relevant
documents, we find no ill intention at the
hands of the petitioner nor the petitioner
was supposed to fill up Part-B giving all
the details including the vehicle number
before the goods are loaded in a vehicle,
which is meant for transportation to the
same to its end destination.

In the present case, all the
documents were accompanied the goods,
details are duly mentioned which reflects
from the perusal of the documents.
Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle
no. in Part-B cannot be a ground for
seizure of the goods. We hold that the
order of seizure is totally illegal and once
the petitioner has placed the material and
evidence with regard to its claim, it was
obligatory on the part of the respondent
no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate
reasoned order. In this case, no reasons
are assigned nor any discussion is
mentioned in the impugned order of
seizure and notice of penalty. The
respondent no.2 has also not considered
the above notification dated 07.03.2018."

9. The matter is covered by the
judgment
rendered
in
VSL
Alloys
(supra). The impugned order dated
22.12.2023 passed by the respondent no.
2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial
Tax Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Noida
is unsustainable and is quashed.

10. The petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ Tax No. 1757 of 2024

Agmotex Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents