# S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 636 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-07-09 - **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 3026 of 2025 - **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-s-enterprises-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53622 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote under S.129(1)(b) of the CGST/UP GST Act, 2017, treating the petitioner as not being the owner of the goods and the consequent order of detention and seizure of goods and vehicle under S.129(1)(a). Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Unit, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, and release of goods and vehicle. Headnotes GST - UP GST Act, 2017 - S.129(3) - Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) - Penalty under S.129(1)(a) or (b) - Grounds for Imposition of penalty - (a) - Reply by registered email, (b) - Absence of activity at principal place of business - Owner of Goods - Presumption - absence of business activity at principal place of business not sufficient to presume that invoice was fake or that petitioner was not the owner of goods - Opportunity of Hearing. Held: Penalty imposed under S.129(1)(b) of the CGST Act treating the petitioner as not being the owner of the goods was held unsustainable, as replying through registered email without personal appearance is a "tenuous" ground - Absence of activity at the principal place of business cannot, by itself, establish that the invoice was fake or that the petitioner was not the owner - Petitioner's name appeared in the invoice and he sought release of the goods, Clause 6 of Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST applied, deeming him the owner - Order dated 24.06.2025 was quashed - Authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks in accordance with Halder Enterprises (supra) - Petition disposed of. (Paras 3 to 8) (E-7) Case Law Cited M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB) List of Acts Constitution of India; Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 List of Keywords Penalty - Seizure - Owner of Goods - Invoice - Principal Place of Business - Suspension of Registration - GST - Opportunity of Hearing - Reasoned Order - Detention - Email Reply - Portal - Tenuous Grounds Case Arising From Order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Unit, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Suyash Agarwal Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C. ## Text 636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 10. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 636 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. Writ Tax No. 3026 of 2025 S.S. Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Suyash Agarwal Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the imposition of penalty under S.129(1)(b) of the CGST/UP GST Act, 2017, treating the petitioner as not being the owner of the goods and the consequent order of detention and seizure of goods and vehicle under S.129(1)(a). Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Unit, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, and release of goods and vehicle. Headnotes GST - UP GST Act, 2017 - S.129(3) - Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) - Penalty under S.129(1)(a) or (b) - Grounds for Imposition of penalty - (a) - Reply by registered email, (b) - Absence of activity at principal place of business - Owner of Goods - Presumption - absence of business activity at principal place of business not sufficient to presume that invoice was fake or that petitioner was not the owner of goods - Opportunity of Hearing. Held: Penalty imposed under S.129(1)(b) of the CGST Act treating the petitioner as not being the owner of the goods was held unsustainable, as replying through registered email without personal appearance is a "tenuous" ground - Absence of activity at the principal place of business cannot, by itself, establish that the invoice was fake or that the petitioner was not the owner - Petitioner's name appeared in the invoice and he sought release of the goods, Clause 6 of Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST applied, deeming him the owner - Order dated 24.06.2025 was quashed - Authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks in accordance with Halder Enterprises (supra) - Petition disposed of. (Paras 3 to 8) (E-7) Case Law Cited M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB) List of Acts Constitution of India; Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 List of Keywords Penalty - Seizure - Owner of Goods - Invoice - Principal Place of Business - Suspension of Registration - GST - Opportunity of Hearing - Reasoned Order - Detention - Email Reply - Portal - Tenuous Grounds Case Arising From Order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Unit, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Suyash Agarwal Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) 7 All. S.S. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 637 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has made the following prayers:- "A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 24.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Unit Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar - u/s 129(3) of UP GST Act 2017. (Annexure No.1)." B. Issue writ order or directing the nature of mandamus directing Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Mobile Unit Khataul, Muzaffarnagar to release goods and vehicle seized u/s 129(1)(a) of the act;" 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that penalty has been imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act treating the petitioner as not being the owner of the goods. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relies upon a judgment of this Court in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB), wherein this Court has examined this issue and also examined the relevant circular that has been issued by the department with regard to penalty to be imposed under Section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. 5. In the present factual matrix, the grounds for imposing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of CGST Act as elucidated by the authority concerned is two fold:- (a) The first ground is that the petitioner had replied by way of his registered email on the portal itself and none appeared in person before the authority concerned. This ground is tenuous in nature and the fact that the petitioner replied by way of the registered email cannot be held against him. It is not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner was summoned and thereafter the petitioner did not appear. When the petitioner has replied by way of the registered email through the portal, no adverse inference can be drawn against him. (b) The second ground is that subsequent to the detention on June 11, 2025, a team was sent to the principal place of business of the petitioner and no activity was found at the particular place. Owing to this, the authority concerned suspended the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that no business activities were carried out at the principal place of business of the petitioner. On this issue also, we are of the view that the absence of any activity at the principal place of business of the petitioner by itself cannot result in a presumption that the invoice that was issued to the petitioner was fake and that the petitioner is not the owner of the goods. 6. Since the petitioner's name is there in the invoice and the petitioner has approached the authorities concerned for release of the goods, we are of the view that Clause No.6 in Circular No.76/50/2018-GST dated December 31, 2018 shall apply to the petitioner and it would be deemed that 638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the petitioner is the owner of the goods. 7. In light of the above findings, the impugned order dated June 24, 2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in mind the principle laid down in M/s Halder Enterprises (supra), within a period of eight weeks from date. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 638 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Matter Under Article 227 No. 5913 of 2025 (Criminal) Satish Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Manvendra Singh Counsel for the Opp. Parties: G.A. Issue for Consideration Petitioner confined his prayer seeking relief by moving the discharge application before the Court concerned at the appropr iate stage. Head Notes The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 - Section 21 - Offences under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act are tried summarily by a Magistrate - Petition disposed of . Held- Direction issued to the Court concerned to cons ider and decide the matter in terms of Chapter XX and XXI of the Code of C riminal Procedure, 1973. (Para 5) (E-15) Case Law Cited List of Acts The Constitution of India, 1950 - The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 List of Keywords Offences under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act; Tried summarily by a Magistrate Case Arising From Judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Baghpat, in Criminal Revis ion No. 69 of 2024 (Satish Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as impugned cognizance order dated 25.08.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Criminal Case No. 3599 of 2017 (State vs. Satish Kumar Gupta) aris ing out of Case Crime No. 303 of 2017, under Sections 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the Bonded Labour S ystem (Abolition) Act, 1976, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid Criminal Case No. 3599 of 2017 (State Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat. (E-15) Appearances for Parties Counsel for Petitioner : - Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent : - G.A.