Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

GST Detention Dispute Involving Factual Issues Dismissed as Premature, Allahabad HC Cites Alternate Remedy [Read Order]

The Bench noted that issues raised by petitioner involved such questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction

Mansi Yadav
GST Detention Dispute Involving Factual Issues Dismissed as Premature, Allahabad HC Cites Alternate Remedy [Read Order]
X

The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with GST detention proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it was found that issues involving factual examination should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law. The writ petition was filed by M/s Lymer Enterprises challenging detention and penalty orders passed in Form GST...


The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with GST detention proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it was found that issues involving factual examination should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law.

The writ petition was filed by M/s Lymer Enterprises challenging detention and penalty orders passed in Form GST MOV-09 dated 20.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (Mobile Squad), Gautam Buddha Nagar. The petitioner sought release of the detained vehicle and goods. It was also contended that the proceedings were arbitrary and similar relief had been granted by the High Court in other cases.

The State of U.P., the respondent, raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It was contended that an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under the GST Act. It was also contended that the petitioner had failed to submit any reply to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2025 and there was material raising doubts regarding the genuineness of the supplier.

Let AI handle GST returns, notices, and litigation - Click Here to know more

The petitioner relied upon a prior decision of the High Court in Mz Momin Products v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which release of goods was ordered in similar circumstances after payment of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.

The Bench, comprising Justice Saumitra DayalSingh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, observed that the precedents cited by petitioner were decided on different sets of facts and did not lay down any binding proposition of law. It was noted that the issues raised by the petitioner involved such questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

As a result, the Court held that it would not be appropriate to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

M/S Lymer Enterprises vs State of U.P. and Another , 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 268 , WRIT TAX No. - 7844 of 2025 , 16 December 2025 , Pranjal Shukla , C.S.C.
M/S Lymer Enterprises vs State of U.P. and Another
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 268Case Number :  WRIT TAX No. - 7844 of 2025Date of Judgement :  16 December 2025Coram :  SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.Counsel of Appellant :  Pranjal ShuklaCounsel Of Respondent :  C.S.C.
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019