S.S. Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court has ruled that the mere absence of activity at a business’s principal place does not automatically render invoices issued to an assessee as fake, nor does it imply the assessee is not the owner of goods. This decision came in the case of S.S. Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and Another, where a writ petition challenged an order imposing a penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.
The petitioner sought to quash an order dated June 24, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Mobile Unit Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, and to secure the release of seized goods and vehicles. The penalty was levied on the grounds that the petitioner was not considered the owner of the goods.
The High Court, presided over by a division bench, found two reasons cited by the tax authority for imposing the penalty to be “tenuous in nature.” Firstly, the authority criticized the petitioner for responding via registered email on the portal rather than appearing in person. The court dismissed this, stating that a reply through the registered email on the official portal cannot be held against the petitioner, especially since there was no claim of a summons being ignored.
