Goods cannot be Detained u/s 129(1)(b) due to GST Registration Suspension when Proper Tax Invoice and E-way bill are Present: Allahabad HC [Read Order]
Referring to precedents, including Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P., the bench held that goods with valid tax invoices and e-way bills cannot be detained merely due to registration suspension
![Goods cannot be Detained u/s 129(1)(b) due to GST Registration Suspension when Proper Tax Invoice and E-way bill are Present: Allahabad HC [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/GST-Registration-Suspension-Tax-Invoice-E-way-bill-Allahabad-HC-taxscan.jpg "Goods cannot be Detained u/s 129(1)(b) due to GST Registration Suspension when Proper Tax Invoice and E-way bill are Present: Allahabad HC [Read Order]")
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court ruled that goods cannot be detained under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act solely due to GST registration suspension if the consignment is accompanied by a valid tax invoice and e-way bill. The petitioner, Lakhdatar Traders challenged a detention order and penalty demand issued by the authorities based on the...
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court ruled that goods cannot be detained under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act solely due to GST registration suspension if the consignment is accompanied by a valid tax invoice and e-way bill.
The petitioner, Lakhdatar Traders challenged a detention order and penalty demand issued by the authorities based on the suspension of the petitioner’s GST registration.
The dispute arose when the petitioner’s vehicle transporting goods from Patna to Gurugram was intercepted on October 4, 2024. Despite no discrepancies being found during physical verification, the goods were detained, and a notice was issued citing the petitioner’s suspended registration.
Complete Draft Replies of GST ITC Related Notices, Click Here
The petitioner argued that the suspension of registration, initiated by Bihar authorities on October 3, 2024, was unrelated to the validity of the accompanying documents, which were dated October 1, 2024.
The respondent’s counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that a bare perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the registration was obtained by the petitioner based on fake documents and, therefore, as the documents which were accompanying the goods in question were obtained based on a fake registration, the passing of the order was justified.
The Court observed that the detention and penalty imposed were unjustified as the goods were accompanied by proper documents.
Complete Draft Replies of GST ITC Related Notices, Click Here
Referring to precedents, including Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P., Chief Justice Arun Bansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar, held that goods with valid tax invoices and e-way bills cannot be detained merely due to registration suspension.
The bench set aside the penalty order and directed the authorities to release the goods in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within two weeks.
Aditya Pandey and Ankur Agarwal, S.C. appeared for the petitioner and the respondents respectively.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
