# M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Revisionist v. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 139
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-02
- **Case number:** Sales/ Trade Tax Revision No. 38 of 2023
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-southern-petrochemical-industries-ltd-revisionist-v-the-commissioner-of-51257
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sales Tax - U.P. Value Added Tax Rules,
2008 - Rule 63(5) - Principles of Natural
Justice - Revisionist challenged Commercial Tax
Tribunal's order dated 08.12.2016 dismissing
second appeals for assessment years 2004-05 to
2008-09 and 2010-11, and orders dated
04.11.2022
rejecting
recall/rectification
applications - Held, Tribunal's order lacked
reasoning, violating Rule 63(5) requiring written
judgment with points of determination, decision,
and reasons - Non-recording of reasons contravenes
natural justice, rendering order unsustainable -
Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Vs Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Chandana Impex Pvt.
Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs followed - Tribunal
failed to consider assessee's explanation for nonappearance - Impugned orders set aside, matter
remanded for fresh determination within three
months with opportunity to parties - Questions on
inter-St. sale exemption and penalty not addressed
due to remand. (Para 15-27)

Revisions allowed, matter remanded.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

2 All. M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
 U.P., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow
139
factory. This by itself makes it an essential
part of the manufacturing process and
would qualify it under Section 2(f)(iii) of
the Act.

14. In light of the aforesaid findings, I
find no justification to intervene in the
decision made by the Tribunal. As a result,
both
the
revisions
are,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 139
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Sales/ Trade Tax Revision No. 38 of 2023
Connected with
Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 39 of 2023
and other connected cases

M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries
Ltd. ...Revisionist
Versus
The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
U.P., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ritwick Rai, Alok Kumar Singh, Aviral Raj
Singh,
Dhruv
Kumar
Singh,
Palash
Banerjee, Vaibhav Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
C.S.C.

Sales Tax - U.P. Value Added Tax Rules,
2008 - Rule 63(5) - Principles of Natural
Justice - Revisionist challenged Commercial Tax
Tribunal's order dated 08.12.2016 dismissing
second appeals for assessment years 2004-05 to
2008-09 and 2010-11, and orders dated
04.11.2022
rejecting
recall/rectification
applications - Held, Tribunal's order lacked
reasoning, violating Rule 63(5) requiring written
judgment with points of determination, decision,
and reasons - Non-recording of reasons contravenes
natural justice, rendering order unsustainable -
Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Vs Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Chandana Impex Pvt.
Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs followed - Tribunal
failed to consider assessee's explanation for nonappearance - Impugned orders set aside, matter
remanded for fresh determination within three
months with opportunity to parties - Questions on
inter-St. sale exemption and penalty not addressed
due to remand. (Para 15-27)

Revisions allowed, matter remanded.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner
of C.Ex., Allahabad; 2019 (368) E.L.T. 529 (All.)

2. Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Vs
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity; JT 2010(2)
SC 566

3. Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner
of Customs, New Delhi; 2011 (269) E.L.T. 433
(S.C.)

4. St. of Orissa Vs Dhaniram Luhar; JT 2004(2)
SC 172

5. St. of Raj.n Vs Sohan Lal; (2004) 5 SCC 573

6. Raj Kishore Jha Vs St. of Bihar; AIR 2003 SC
4664

7. Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs St. of U.P.; (2008) 3
SCC 172

8. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Sales Tax
Officer, Rourkela I Circle; (2008) 9 SCC 407

9. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Sunil Kumar Singh Negi;
AIR 2008 SC 2026

10. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Jagdish Prasad Gupta; AIR
2009 SC 2328

11. Ram Phal Vs St. of Har.; (2009) 3 SCC 258

12. Mohammed Yusuf Vs Faij Mohammad;
(2009) 3 SCC 513
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. St. of H.P. Vs Sada Ram; (2009) 4 SCC 422

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

(1) Since common factual matrix
arises in the above-captioned revisions and
the parties are also the same, therefore,
with the consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties, the above captioned revisions
were taken up for hearing together and are
being disposed of by this common
judgment and order.

(2) For the sake of convenience, the
revisionist shall hereinafter be referred to
as the assessee and the respondent shall
hereinafter be referred to as the revenue.

(3) Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 43,
44, 48, 52, 54 and 57 of 2023 are filed at
the instance of the assessee, challenging the
correctness of the common judgment and
order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the
Commercial
Tax
Tribunal,
Lucknow
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'),
whereby Second Appeal Nos. 110, 109,
120, 108, 112, 116 of 2014 preferred by the
assessee for the year 2004-05, 2005-2006,
2006-2007,
2007-2008,
2008-2009,
respectively, in respect of demand of Sales
Tax and Value Added Tax have been
dismissed.

(4) Sales/Trade Tax Revisions No. 47,
51 of 2023 are directed against the common
order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the
learned
Tribunal,
whereby
Second
Appeal Nos. 117, 121 of 2014 for the
year
2008-2009
and
2010-2011
preferred by the assessee against the
penalty order dated 30.08.2011 passed
by the Adjudicating Officer, has been
dismissed.

(5) Sales/Trade Tax Revisions No. 38,
39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58
and 59 of 2023 are directed against the
common order dated 04.11.2022 passed by
the learned Tribunal, whereby applications
for recalling/rectification of the order dated
08.12.2016, bearing Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 of
2019, have been rejected.

(6) In nutshell, the facts of the case
are that the assessee/revisionist is a Public
Limited Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the
business
of
manufacturing/trading
of
Chemical
Fertilizers
and
Pesticides,
execution
of
Railway
Electrification
Projects, Supply of Electrical Goods and
execution of High Voltage Transmission
Line projects for Government and Public
Sector Agencies such as Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd. (Power Grid),
State Electricity Board, Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Limited and Central
Organization for Railway Electrification.

(7) In response to the tenders floated
by the Power Grid Corporation India Ltd.
(in short, 'PGCIL') and others, the
assessee/revisionist had entered into two
separate identifiable contracts and the same
was communicated to the assessee by the
PGCIL vide letter dated 14.11.2003,
according to which, the assessee has been
assigned contracts viz. (i) for supply of
equipment and material for tower package
for
400k
V
D/C
VishnuprayagMuzaffarnagar Transmission Line having
specification
No.
C-12904-L165-3
(hereinafter referred to as 'goods'); and (ii)
for transportation, insurance, delivery,
survey, foundation, erection, stringing,
testing and commissioning of the same
transmission line.
2 All. M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
 U.P., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow
141

(8) It is the case of the assessee that
insofar as the first contract, PGCIL through
various branches offices was to inspect and
certify the goods for fitness at the place of
vendors from whom the goods are procured
by the assesee and on such certification in
Material
Inspection
and
Clearance
Certificate, 75% of payment against supply
of such goods is released. Undisputedly, the
vendors, from whom the goods were
procured in pursuance of the aforesaid
contracts, were situated outside the State of
Uttar Pradesh, hence the goods were
dispatched from the place of venders from
outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to the site
within Uttar Pradesh. After commencement
of transportation, the assessee transferred
the title of the goods during transit to the
Contractee by making endorsement on the
bilites. Thereafter, the Contractee received
the goods at site and subsequently, the
assessee, acting as bailee of goods of the
Contractee, carried out other activities,
such as uploading, storage etc. and used the
goods in execution of the second contract.

(9) Further case of the assessee is that
on observing abundant caution and to fulfil
the legal requirement, assessee received
relevant documents i.e. Form-C from the
Contractee and Form-E1 from the vendors
to further establish that such sale was a
subsequent sale, which is not subjected to
Taxation. According to the assesee, in case
of the inter-State sales, the sale may be
subjected to tax only in the State from
which movement of goods takes place.
However, the Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Lucknow (hereinafter
referred to as 'Assessing Officer'), had
issued
a
show
cause
notice
dated
22.07.2010 to the assessee, proposing to
withdraw the Transit Sale Exemption
availed/claim of inter-State by him under
the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with a
direction to him to file its objection. In
response, the assessee had filed detailed
objections. However, the Assessing Officer,
vide assessment order dated 31.01.2011,
denied the claim of inter-state sale
exemption and confirmed the demand on
such inter-state sale. The said assessment
order dated 31.01.2011 was challenged by
the
assessee
before
the
Additional
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow
by
filing
appeals.
The
Additional
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow,
vide order dated 23.11.2013, dismissed the
appeal of the assessee and upheld the
demand.

(10) Feeling aggrieved by the
aforesaid order dated 23.11.2013, the
assessee has preferred second appeal before
the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, vide an
order dated 08.12.2016, dismissed the
second appeal due to non-presence of the
assesse or his counsel. Since the Counsel
who was engaged in the matter on behalf of
assessee could not appear on 08.12.2016,
the assessee preferred an application for
recall of the order dated 08.12.2016, which
was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide
order dated 22.10.2019, stating that the
absence of the assessee on the day of the
hearing despite being duly served with a
notice as well as non-submission of prayer
requesting a postponement of hearing
implies the assessee's non-cooperation in
the speedy disposal of the appeal and its
intent to delay the proceedings by any
means. Subsequently, the assessee filed
another application for rectification of
mistake in the order dated 22.10.2019 and
recalling of the order dated 08.12.2016
before the learned Tribunal, which too was
rejected vide order dated 04.11.2022.
Feeling
aggrieved,
the
assessee
has
preferred the above-captioned revisions
before this Court.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(11) Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 38,
39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58
and 59 of 2023 were admitted on
11.01.2024 on the following questions of
law :-

"a. Whether the Impugned Order
is perverse as the same has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice
because the same is non-reasoned as the
application for recall of the order was
considered as application for rectification
of mistake only?

b. Whether the Impugned Order
is perverse which failed to consider the
explanation of the Revisionist as sufficient
cause for non-appearance on the date
(07.12.2016) on which hearing was fixed?

c. Whether the date of which
certified
copy
of
the
Order
dated
08.12.2016 is obtained, is to be considered
as the date from which limitation period
commences under the Uttar Pradesh Trade
Tax Act, 1948 or Uttar Pradesh Value
Added
Tax
Act,
2008,
where
the
requirement is on the Tribunal to serve a
certified copy of the order passed by it?

d. Whether the finding recorded
by the Learned Tribunal that there was
delay in filing of recall Application was
perverse as no contrary fact was on record,
and in such circumstances, the affidavit of
the Revisionist is enough to establish that
the copy of order was not served upon the
Revisionist?"

(12) Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos.
43, 44, 48, 52, 54 and 57 of the 2023 were
admitted on 11.01.2024 on the following
question of law :-

"a. Whether the impugned order
is perverse as the same has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice
because an opportunity of hearing was not
afforded and also because the same is nonreasoned and non-speaking as held by this
Hon'ble High court in the matter of 'Mamta
Steel India Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner
of C.Ex., Allahabad', reported in 2019
(368) E.L.T. 529 ) All.)?

b. Whether the impugned order is
perverse as the same has been passed
ignoring the ratio of the decision of the
Hon'ble High Court that the sale of the
goods, of which movement occasioned
from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh due
to a contract for use of the same in the
execution of works contract in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, amounts to an inter-state
sale and the same is not subjected to tax in
the State of Uttar Pradesh?

c. Whether the sale of goods
referred in contract is subject to exemption
under Section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956?

d. Whether even if the contract in
question is considered as indivisible work
contract then also the sale of goods, of
which movement occasioned from outside
the State of Uttar Pradesh is inter-state sale
or not?

e. Whether the contracts in
question are legally bound to be considered
as two separate contracts as per the
Constitutional Amendment in the definition
of 'sale' under Article 366(29A)(b) of the
Constitution of India?"

(13) Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 47
and 51 of 2023 were admitted on
11.01.2024 on the following question of
law :-

"a. Whether the impugned order
is perverse as the same has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice
because an opportunity of hearing was not
afforded and also because the same is nonreasoned and non-speaking as held by this
2 All. M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
 U.P., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow
143
Hon'ble High court in the matter of 'Mamta
Steel India Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner
of C.Ex., Allahabad', reported in 2019
(368) E.L.T. 529 )All.)?

b. Whether the impugned order is
perverse as the same has been passed
ignoring the ratio of the decision of the
Hon'ble High Court that for imposing
penalty, a satisfaction has to be recorded to
justify intention to evade tax and the same
is not subjected to tax in the State of Uttar
Pradesh?

c. Whether mere blank column 6
in Form 38 lead to imposition of penalty
were other documents accompanying the
Form 38 proves that there was no intention
to evade tax?"

(14) Heard Shri Ritwick Rai and Shri
Aviral
Raj
Singh,
learned
Counsel
representing the assessee/revisionists and
Shri
Sanjay
Sarin,
learned
Counsel
representing the respondent/revenue.

(15) Learned Counsel for the assessee
has submitted that it was the duty of the
Tribunal to duly consider the issues raised
by the assessee and deal with all the aspects
before deciding the appeals. It is also
submitted that the learned Tribunal has
decided the appeals in the most cursory and
casual manner and without giving any
reasons for not accepting the cause shown
by the assessee of his absence on the date
fixed. According to the learned Counsel,
specific plea has been raised by the asessee
before the learned Tribunal that the
Counsel who appeared on his behalf,
though noted the date fixed in the appeal,
however, he became subsequently ill and
neither the date fixed nor his illness was
communicated to him, on account of
which, no one has put in appearance on the
behalf of the assesse before the Tribunal.
Thus, it has been submitted that the
impugned judgment suffers from vice of
non-application of mind, which is writ
large on the impugned order, and therefore
the appeal deserves to be allowed on this
score alone.

(16) Inviting attention to Clause (5) of
Rule 63 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added
Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules, 2008'), learned Counsel for the
assessee has submitted that Clause (5) of
Rule 63 clearly stipulates that the judgment
in the appeal shall be in writing and shall
state three points viz. (a) the points of
determination; (b) the decision thereon; and
(c) the reasons for such decision. However,
while passing the impugned order dated
08.12.2016, none of the points stipulated in
Clause (5) of Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008
has been followed and in a cursory manner,
the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 has
been passed. He, therefore, prays that the
matter be remanded back to the learned
Tribunal for fresh consideration in the
matter on merits.

(17) Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel
for the revenue, on being faced with the
impugned order has fairly stated that
the same is bereft of any reasoning
and did not oppose the arguments
raised by the counsel for the appellant
for remand of the matter to the
Tribunal
for
reconsideration
in
accordance with law.

(18) Having regard to the submissions
made by the learned Counsel for the parties
and going through the record available
before this court in the above-captioned
revisions, it is first required to be noted that
Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008 deals with the
disposal of appeal, wherein Clause (5) of
Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008 provides as
under :-
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(5) The judgment in appeal shall
be in writing and shall state

(a) the points for determination,

(b) the decision thereon, and

(c) the reasons for such decision."

(19) The aforesaid clause (5) of Rule
63 of the Rules, 2008 clearly provided that
the judgment in appeal shall be in writing
and shall state the points of determination,
the decision thereon and the reasons for
such decision.

(20) A bare perusal of the impugned
order dated 08.12.2016 clearly shows that
the Tribunal has not determined the issue
raised in the appeal preferred by the
assessee but relying on grounds of rejection
of the appeal of the assessee by the first
appellate authority, dismissed the appeal .
The Tribunal has concluded by holding that
no convincing defence was put forth by the
assessee
and
therefore
proceeded
to
confirm the order passed by the first
appellate authority.

(21) It is trite law that an order
without valid reasons cannot be sustained.
To give reasons is engrained in the rule of
natural justice. Highlighting this rule,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of
the
Secretary
&
Curator, Victoria
Memorial
v.
Howrah
Ganatantrik
Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC
566 para 31 to 33 as under :-

"31.
It
is
a
settled
legal
proposition that not only administrative but
also judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the Court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the Court
to record reasons while disposing of the
case. The hallmark of an order and exercise
of judicial power by a judicial forum is to
disclose its reasons by itself and giving of
reasons has always been insisted upon as
one
of
the
fundamentals
of
sound
administration justice - delivery system, to
make known that there had been proper
and due application of mind to the issue
before the Court and also as an essential
requisite of principles of natural justice.
The giving of reasons for a decision is an
essential attribute of judicial and judicious
disposal of a matter before Courts, and
which is the only indication to know about
the manner and quality of exercise
undertaken, as also the fact that the Court
concerned had really applied its mind. "
[Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar
(JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan
Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC
338:2004 (5) SCC 573].

32. Reason is the heartbeat of
every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, it becomes
lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the
order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to
further challenge before a higher forum.
[Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev
Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India
Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle
& Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of
Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh
Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs.
Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328;
Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs.
Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513;
and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada
Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the
recording of reasons is principle of natural
justice and every judicial order must be
2 All. M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
 U.P., Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow
145
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It
ensures transparency and fairness in
decision making. The person who is
adversely affected may know, as why his
application has been rejected."

(22) Non recording of reasons, nonconsideration of admissible evidence or
consideration of inadmissible evidence
renders the order to be unsustainable.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandana
Impex
Pvt.
Ltd.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi :
2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), has held as
under :-

"8. ....It needs to be emphasised
that every litigant, who approaches the
court for relief is entitled to know the
reason for acceptance or rejection of his
prayer, particularly when either of the
parties to the lis has a right of further
appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware
of the reasons which weighed with the
court in denying him the relief prayed
for, the remedy of appeal will not be
meaningful. It is that reasoning, which
can be subjected to examination at the
higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs.
Dhaniram Luhar, this Court, while
reiterating that reason is the heart beat
of every conclusion and without the
same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus
:

"8.......Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system; reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the
matter before court. Another rationale is
that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is
spelling
out
reasons
for
the
order
made;......."

(23) In view of the aforesaid legal
propositions, it is a cardinal principle of
law that reasons are really linchpin to
administration of justice. They are the link
between the mind of the decision-taker and
the controversy in question. To justify
conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence
of reasoning would render the judicial
order liable to interference by the higher
court. Reasons are the soul of the decision
and its absence would render the order
open to judicial scrutiny. The consistent
judicial opinion is that every order
determining rights of the parties in a Court
of law ought not to be recorded without
supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order
is not only beneficial to the higher courts
but is even of great utility for providing
public understanding of law and imposing
self- discipline in the Judge as their
discretion is controlled by well- established
norms.
Absence
of
reasoning
is
impermissible in judicial pronouncement.

(24) The contention raised before this
court that there is an absence of reasoning
in the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, in
itself would render the order liable to be set
aside.

(25) It is the duty cast upon the
Appellate Authority that even if it is in
agreement with the view taken by the first
Appellate Authority, it should give its own
reasons/findings which may indicate that
there has been application of mind and also
the consideration of grounds raised in the
appeal by the revisionist. In absence of
reasons it is difficult to come to a
conclusion that there has been any
application of mind by the Tribunal and
such an order in the opinion of the Court
cannot be sustained and deserves to be set
aside.
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(26) In view of the discussions made
above, the question posed for consideration
in the revisions is answered in favour of the
assessee and it is held that the Tribunal has
committed manifest error of law in not
complying the provisions of Clause 5 of
Section 63 of the Rules, 2008. In view of
the direction issued, alternative issues
between the revisionist and revenue are not
required to be examined any further.

(27) Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 08.12.2016 is hereby set-aside. As a
consequence thereof, the consequential
impugned orders dated 04.11.2022 passed
on the recall application and rectification
application are also set-aside. The matter is
remanded
to
the
Tribunal
for
redetermination, in terms of the discussion
made above, after affording opportunity to
the parties, expeditiously, say within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order
in accordance with law.

(28) It is clarified that the parties shall
not seek any unnecessary adjournment
before the learned Tribunal.

(29) The above-captioned revisions
stands allowed in the aforesaid term.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 146
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023

M/s Falguni Steels ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rishi Kumar, Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel

Civil Law - U.P. Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Penalty for Non-Generation of eWay Bill - The petitioner challenged the orders
dated 21.02.2019 and 20.10.2019 imposing tax
and
penalty
under
Section
129(3)
for
transporting goods without an e-Way Bill - Held,
the absence of an e-Way Bill due to technical
glitches and local administrative restrictions
(Maghi Purnima, Kumbh Mela 2019) did not
indicate intent to evade tax, as tax invoices with
vehicle details were present and e-Way Bills
were generated before the penalty order,
rendering the penalty unjustified. (Paras 2, 6, 8,
13, 16, 17)

Intent to Evade Tax - Mandatory for
Penalty
Under
Section
129
-
The
respondents argued that the absence of an eWay Bill at the time of inspection violated Rule
138 of the UPGST Rules, 2017 - Held, as per
VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of U.P.,
Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. Vs St. of U.P., and
other precedents, penalty under Section 129
requires proof of intent to evade tax, which was
absent here since CGST and SGST were paid
and
no
discrepancies
were
found
in
accompanying documents. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11,
15, 16, 18)

Natural Justice and Non-Reasoned Orders
- The petitioner contended that the orders of
Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 were
non-speaking and violated natural justice -
Held,
Respondent
No.
2's
order
lacked
reasoning beyond rejecting e-Way Bills as an
afterthought, and Respondent No. 3's ex parte
order erroneously St.d that intent to evade tax
was not required under the UPGST Act, 2017,
contrary to established law, making both orders
arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 3, 13, 17,
18)

Writ of Certiorari - Jurisdictional Error -
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to
quash the impugned orders for exceeding