Bishnu Supply Co Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of the petitioner’s goods and vehicle and the subsequent orders passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
At the outset, the petitioner restricted its challenge to the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The principal issue before the Court was whether the goods were liable to be released under Section 129(1)(a) or Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act read with the IGST Act.
The petitioner contended that it was the owner of the goods and, therefore, the goods should have been released in terms of Section 129(1)(a). However, the authorities had calculated the liability and proceeded under Section 129(1)(b) through an order dated September 12, 2024.
In support of its case, the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others and S/S S.K. Trading Co. and Another v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) and Another. It was argued that enhancement of valuation could not be undertaken under Section 129(1)(a) and that the penalty under that provision must be determined on the basis of the valuation reflected in the invoice and e-way bill.
