2025 (7) TMI 786 - HC - GST

Penalty under Section 129(1)(b) CGST Act quashed for non-owner who presented invoice during goods transit

M.A. Traders And 7 Others Versus State of U.P. and Another

HC quashed penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) of CGST Act imposed on petitioner who was not the goods owner. Court held that authority erred in law by ... Levy of penalty u/s 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act - petitioner is not the owner of goods - HELD THAT:- Since the invoice was presented in the present case, the authority concerned has erred in law by imposing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. 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 [2023 (12) TMI 514 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], within a period of eight weeks from date. Petition disposed off. The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 challenging orders under the UP GST Act 2017, quashed the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court relied on its prior decision in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P., 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB), which clarified that when an invoice is presented, penalty under Section 129(1)(b) is not warranted. The Court held that the authority erred in imposing such penalty and accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2025. It directed the authority to grant the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order in conformity with the legal principles established in M/s Halder Enterprises within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.