Vishal Chobia Vs State of U.P. and 4 others (Allahabad High Court)
Writ petitions are filed challenging the order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST by which the claim of the ownership of the petitioner on the goods detained has been rejected and the same has been passed in the name of the driver of the vehicle.
Petitioner submitted that penalty could have been levied u/s 129 (1) (a) whereas it has been imposed u/s 129(1)(b) in terms of the Clarification dated 31.12.2018 issued by the CBDT, GST Policy Wing. Petitioner is proprietor of Vishal Enterprises and goods in question were owned by him. Authority found them incorrect only on account of the fact that the invoice and e-way bills contained the name of the firm. Registration certificate in form GST REG-06 indicates the name of petitioner’s firm as ‘Vishal Enterprise’ and constitution of business as ‘proprietorship’ and the same status is also reflected on the website of the department on searching through the GISTIN which was ignored while passing order u/s 129(1)(a). Once the ownership of the goods, i.e., the consignee is establishment in terms of the Clarification, the petitioner is deemed to be owner of the goods and is consequently entitled to the relief as claimed. Reliance has been placed on Halder Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. : (2023) 157 taxmann.com 231; Margo Brush India and others Vs. State of U.P. and another : Writ Tax No. 1580 of 2022 decided on 16.01.2023; Green India Vs. State of U.P. : (2024) 160 taxmann.com 349; and Ram India Company Vs. State of U.P. : (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 164.
