TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order issued in GST Form GST MOV-09 dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Office of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Jurisdiction Sector-3 (Mobile Squad-2), Gautam Buddha Nagar Uttar Pradesh, the respondent no.2, (Annexure No.11 & 9 to the writ petition); ii) Issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release of vehicle having registration No. UP81ET-1802, along with goods, of the petitioner." 3. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition in face of statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. Further, it has been stressed, the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for reason of e-way bill not accompanying the goods, it may have resulted in penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), only. However, the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously computed the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. On that issue, reliance has been placed on Halder Enterprises Vs. State of U.P.; (2023) 13 Centax 144 (All). That petition was allowed on the following terms: "12. In light of the above, the order passed by the authorities dated October 19, 2023 is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks from to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f yesterday, by the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Submission is, the petitioner has taken supply from a registered person. The petitioner itself is a registered person. Therefore, any doubt that may have arisen on the physical verification of the goods by the UPGST authorities, may only have led to demand of security in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). However, excessive security has been demanded under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. 3. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel objects that the petitioner failed to file any reply in response to the show cause notice wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find no merit in the submissions being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While it is for the learned counsel to advance such submissions as may emerge on the facts and pleadings of the case and as they may be instructed, at the same time, the Court may not create latitude in favour of the counsel that they had erred in pointing out correct facts in the earlier case. 8. That general premise apart, in the present facts, we do not find any conflict in the two orders passed by us, in M/S Mz Momin Products (supra) and M/S Caviar Trading Company (supra). At present, neither order lays down any law as may cause binding effect.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a small difference of facts is enough to discourage the writ Court from exercising its discretion. Therefore, merely because two transporters may have been treated differently in the individual/distinct facts brought before us may not give rise to any ground of conflict between two orders. 11. Coming to the present facts, it has been asserted, there is no basis for the revenue authorities to doubt the tax invoices that were found accompanying the goods. At present, no survey has been conducted by the revenue authorities to doubt the existence of the supplier or the recipient. Therefore, the whole exercise is premature. To the extent the show cause notice was issued....