# Surendra Gupta v. Appellate Authority State GST/Addl. Commissioner Grade II & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 267
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-28
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1892 of 2024
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-gupta-v-appellate-authority-state-gst-addl-commissioner-grade-ii-ors-53053
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Ankur Agrawal,
C.S.C., Gopal Verma

Petitioner paid one time lease rent amounting to
Rs.97,18,500/- to the New Okhla Development
Authority ( 'NOIDA') and also paid the GST @
18%- the NOIDA issued a tax invoice to the
petitioner-he furnished his return u/s 39 of the
CGST/UPGST Act- due to the mistake on the
part of the NOIDA, the same was not reflecting
in the form GSTR-3B-proceedings were initiated
u/s 61 of the CGST Act-impugned order -
appeal-rejected-impugned-petitioner cannot be
permitted to suffer to the mistake committed on
the part of NOIDA-petitioner paid the legitimate
tax to NOIDA, which was not deposited under
the
proper
head
-petitioner
must
be
compensated by NOIDA within 15 days.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

3 All. Surendra Gupta Vs. Appellate Authority State GST/Addl. Commissioner Grade II & Ors.
267
the same day at 7:36 a.m. after about three
hours after the detention of the goods.
Moreover, on the inquiry it was found that
the petitioner was not carrying out the
business at the place where the firm was
registered. The registration of the firm was
also suo moto cancelled.

14.
The
argument
raised
by
petitioner's counsel that notice was not
served before order dated 24.06.2022 was
passed is totally against the material on
record which not only reveals that notice
was served upon the driver but it was also
sent through e-mail to both the seller and
buyer on 16.06.2022 which remained
unattended.
Once
finding
has
been
recorded by authorities and petitioner firm
never participated in the proceedings before
the authorities, no case is made out for
interference by this Court.

15.
Moreover,
conduct
of
the
petitioner clearly reveals that an intention
to evade the tax is there as not only the
goods in transit were not accompanied by
e-way bill but also the description of goods
declared by petitioner was different which
was intercepted by the taxing authorities on
10.06.2022. Goods declared were taxable
@5% while the goods found on verification
were taxable @18%.

16.
Reliance
placed
upon
the
Division
Bench
judgment
is
distinguishable in the facts of the present
case as in those cases, the transaction was
prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was
given to those assesses. It is mandatory
on the part of the seller to download the
e-way bill once the goods are put in
transit. Subsequent downloading of e-way
bill would not absolve the liability under
the Act.

17. No case for interference is made
out.

18. The writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 267
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 1892 of 2024

Surendra Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority State GST/Addl.
Commissioner Grade II & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nikhil Kumar, Vagish Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Ankur Agrawal,
C.S.C., Gopal Verma

Petitioner paid one time lease rent amounting to
Rs.97,18,500/- to the New Okhla Development
Authority ( 'NOIDA') and also paid the GST @
18%- the NOIDA issued a tax invoice to the
petitioner-he furnished his return u/s 39 of the
CGST/UPGST Act- due to the mistake on the
part of the NOIDA, the same was not reflecting
in the form GSTR-3B-proceedings were initiated
u/s 61 of the CGST Act-impugned order -
appeal-rejected-impugned-petitioner cannot be
permitted to suffer to the mistake committed on
the part of NOIDA-petitioner paid the legitimate
tax to NOIDA, which was not deposited under
the
proper
head
-petitioner
must
be
compensated by NOIDA within 15 days.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. Vs
Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & anr., (2024) 2
Supreme Court cases 375

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

1. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ankur
Agarwal for the respondent no.4, and Sri
R.S. Pandey, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
05.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.1
and order dated 15.12.2023 passed by
respondent no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is the head
(karta) of the Hindu Undivided Family,
whose
family
is
in
possession
and
ownership of building situates at F-16,
Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar.
The said property is a commercial fourstorey building and as such the petitioner
is in the business of renting out the said
property. The rent received from the said
property, is taxable under the Goods &
Services Tax Act, 2017 and therefore, the
petitioner has filed its return. The
petitioner, being a law abiding person,
has paid one time lease rent amounting to
Rs. 97,18,500/- to the New Okhla
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'NOIDA') and also paid
the GST @ 18%, which amounts to
Rs.17,49,330/-, pursuant to which, the
NOIDA issued a tax invoice to the
petitioner. The petitioner furnishes his
return
under
Section
39
of
the
CGST/UPGST Act. He further submits
due to the mistake on the part of the
NOIDA, the same was not reflecting in
the form GSTR-3B, however, the tax so
deposited by the petitioner, was accepted
by the NOIDA.

4. He further submits that the
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner under Section 61 of the CGST
Act to which the petitioner submitted his
reply and thereafter, the proceedings
under Section 73 (1) of the CGST Act
was initiated to which the petitioner also
submitted a detailed reply supported by
documentary
evidence
showing
the
payment
of
tax
as
well
as
acknowledgement receipt issued by the
NOIDA, but without considering the
same, the impugned order has been
passed against which an appeal was filed,
which
was
also
dismissed
without
considering the material available on
record.

5. He further submits that in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA,
the fact with regard to deposit of amount of
tax by the petitioner has been accepted and
same has been deposited in some other
head. He further submits that once the
NOIDA accepts the payment of tax, the
petitioner cannot be penalized twice; once
paying the tax to the NOIDA for depositing
the same with GST department as per the
law and other by facing penal proceedings
under Section 73 of the GST Act whereby
tax has again been imposed upon the
petitioner of equal amount along with
penalty of Rs.19,22,778/-. He further
submits that the amount of tax and penalty
imposed by the impugned order upon the
petitioner
may
be
directed
to
be
paid/compensated by the NOIDA to the
petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel supports the impugned order by
submitting that the proceedings were
3 All. Surendra Gupta Vs. Appellate Authority State GST/Addl. Commissioner Grade II & Ors.
269
rightly initiated against the petitioner as
engaged in renting out the commercial
building, over which goods and services tax
are liable to be paid/deposit, but the same
was not deposited.

7. The counsel appearing for the
NOIDA admits that the amount was
received towards from the petitioner
towards the GST payment, but the same
was deposited under some wrong head. He
further submits that had the same was
notified at the proper time, the same would
have been rectified. He further submits that
it's the mistake on the part of the petitioner
in not informing the respondent-NOIDA
within time.

8. Upon hearing the parties, the Court
has perused the records.

9. The record shows that the petitioner
has paid the amount of GST to the NOIDA,
which was required to be deposited with
the GST Department. The said fact has not
been disputed by either of the authorities.

10. The paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
NOIDA would be relevant, which reads as
under:-

"3. That it is pertinent to submit
here that on 21.09.2017 the petitioner
had deposited Rs. 97,18,500/- towards
lump sum/one time lease rent amount of
the plot situated at F-16, Sector 18,
Noida. The Petitioner also paid Rs.
17,49,330/-towards 18% GST for the
aforesaid
plot
with
the
respondent
authority. Copy of the statement of
accounts of the petitioner for payment of
one-time lease rent alongwith payment of
applicable GST and the copy of the
payment challan dated 21.09.2017 are
collectively
filed
herewith
as
ANNEXURE No. SA1 (colly.).

4. That pertinently since the
GST Act was recently enacted and due to
non-clarity and on the advise of the tax
consultant of the Authority, the said tax
was
deposited
by
the
Respondent
Authority in the head of B2C and
subsequently the return was filed. If the
Petitioner had approached the Authority
at that time, the Authority could have
filed the rectification application. But,
this fact went unnoticed and resultantly
the same could not be rectified in time.

5. That on 18.10.2017, the
Respondent Noida Authority deposited
the aforesaid payment of GST at 18%
amounting to Rs. 17,49,330/- with the
State GST Authorities and as such filed
its return in Form GSTR-3B dated
18.10.2017 for the Month of September
F.Y. 2017-18. Copy of the Return filed by
the Noida Authority dated 18.10.2017 for
the Month of September F.Y. 2017-18 is
filed herewith as ANNEXURE No. SA2.

6. That the Noida Authority vide
its return filed in Form GSTR 3B dated
18.10.2017 for the Month of September
F.Y.
2017-18
deposited
Rs.
14,10,21,036/-
towards CGST and Rs. 14,10,21,036/
towards SGST. This amount included the
amount of Rs. 8,74,665/- paid by the
Petitioner
towards
CGST
and
Rs.
8,74,665/ towards SGST. Therefore, as
such the tax collected by the Respondent
Noida Authority from the Petitioner had
been deposited by the Respondent Noida
Authority on 18.10.2017 itself with the
GST Authorities."

11. Perusal of the contents of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA,
show that the payment of GST deposited by
the petitioner was accepted by it. Further,
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they also admitted depositing of the GST
amount under the wrong head. The NOIDA
had attributed its mistake upon tax
consultant by whom the advise was taken.
In turn, the NOIDA accepts its mistake for
non-deposit of the due tax so paid by the
petitioner under the proper heads.

12. In view of the above categorical
statement of admission made in the counter
affidavit filed by the NOIDA/respondent
no.4, the impugned orders cannot be said to
be arbitrary or call for any interference by
this Court.

13. Before parting, it will be relevant
to notice that the tax amount paid by the
petitioner to the NOIDA authorities was
accepted, and deposited under the wrong
head, hence the petitioner cannot be
permitted
to
suffer
to
the
mistake
committed on the part of NOIDA. The
petitioner paid the legitimate tax to
NOIDA, which was not deposited under the
proper head and therefore, on account of
that the petitioner has to face not only the
proceedings of GST, but also imposition of
penalty.

14. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances, the Court is of the view that
the petitioner must be compensated by
NOIDA.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Batliboi Environmental Engineers
Limited
Vs.
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited an Another, (2024) 2
Supreme Court cases 375, has held that
computation of compensation should not be
whimsical and absurd resulting in a
windfall and bounty for one party at the
expense of the other and the damages
should be commensurate with the loss
sustained by the party.

16. Since the quantification against the
petitioner along with penalty has been
made of Rs.19,22,778/-, which has been
confirmed by the appellate authority, a Writ
of Mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is issued to the
respondent
no.4
i.e.
NOIDA
to
pay/compensate
the
amount
of
Rs.19,22,778/- to the petitioner within 15
days from today. After making the said
payment to the petitioner, the NOIDA shall
intimate about the same to the District
Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar within
the said period.

17. The NOIDA is at liberty to recover
the said amount from the erring officer of
its department.

18. In the event of failure of payment
of compensation to the petitioner by the
NOIDA as mentioned here-in-above, the
District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar
is directed to recover the said amount from
NOIDA and pay the same to the petitioner
within 15 days thereafter.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed off.

20. An affidavit of compliance shall be
filed by the NOIDA within a period of one
month from today. In the event of failure,
the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh
Nagar is directed to file an affidavit of
compliance as stated above within a month.

21. List in Chamber on 15.05.2025.

22. The Registrar (Compliance) of this
Court is directed to communicate this order
to the NOIDA and District Magistrate-
Gautam Buddh Nagar, within 24 hours
from today.
----------
3 All. Ashok Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
271
(2025) 3 ILRA 271
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 Cr.P.C. No. 329 of 2025

Ashok Kumar Verma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri, Aparna Dwivedi,
Utkarsh Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 438- for the last
three years the investigation of the case is going
on and the applicants are cooperating in the
investigation. However, the same is at the
concluding stage and the investigating officer by
misinterpreting Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. is
making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest of the
applicants. Applicants are ready to cooperate in
the investigation and would remain present
before the investigating officer as and when
their presence would be required--- Co-accused
persons have already been enlarged on bail---
protection from arrest for limited period of time
i.e. till submission of police report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the
applicants. (Para 6,8 & 9)

Anticipatory bail application disposed of.
(E-15)

List of Cases cited:

Nathu Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2021(6) SCC
64, MANU/SC/0360/2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
applicants, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of State and
perused the record. In view of order being
passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand
dispensed with.

2. First bail application has been
filed with regard to Case Crime No.79 of
2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, & 471
I.PC., P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow.

3.
As
per
contents
of
first
information report, the applicants along
with co-accused have allegedly submitted
fabricated certificates for the purposes of
registration as a Pharmacist.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for applicants that first information
report has been lodged without verification
and scrutinizing all the relevant documents.

5. Further submission of learned
counsel for applicants is that the case of the
applicants is at par with that of co-accused
namely,
Jafar
Ali,
Arvind
Kumar
Chaurasiya,
Mohd.
Nadeem
Khan,
Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Ankit Kumar
Agarwal,
Sanjay
Kumar
Chaudhary,
Mohan Singh, Abhishek Saxena, Vikram
Singh, Akash Kumar Ray and Sandeep
Singh and Dhruv Raj Singh who have been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide
orders dated 5.8.2024, 29.2.2024, 6.8.2024,
2.9.2024, 5.9.2024, 1.10.2024, 12.11.2024,
22.7.2024,
22.10.2024,
22.10.2024,
24.10.2024
and
3.1.2025
passed
in
CRIMINAL
MISC
ANTICIPATORY
BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C.
numbered - 1737 of 2024, 424 of 2024,
1746 of 2024, 1992 of 2024, 2042 of 2024,
2265 of 2024, 2506 of 2024, 1600 of 2024,
2494 of 2024, 2495 of 2024, 2430 of 2024