Penalty u/s 129(1)(b) to Be Set Aside as Invoice and E-Way Bills Contained Name of Firm Which is Sufficient to Prove Ownership of Goods | HC

Case Details: Vishal Chobia v. State of U.P. - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 561 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Vikas Budhwar, J.
• Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla, Pranit Bag & Rowsan Jha for the Petitioner.
• Meenakshi Singh, A.C.S.C. & Ankur Agarwal, S.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, assessee’s claim of ownership of goods detained by GST Authority was rejected and the authority had imposed penalty under section 129(1)(b) of CGST Act, 2017. The assessee filed writ petition and contended that penalty could have been levied under section 129(1)(a) but the authority, despite specific assertion in claim that goods were owned by assessee, found same as incorrect. The Authority submitted that in relation to ownership, Aadhar Card and Pan Card had not been produced.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the registration certificate pertaining to GSTIN indicated status of assessee as proprietor of Vishal Enterprise. Further, GSTIN provided specific details pertaining to legal name of business as ‘Vishal Chobia’, trade name as ‘Vishal Enterprise’ and the constitution of business as ‘proprietorship’ which was ‘Aadhar authenticated’.

In view of the specific indications in the official records about M/s. Vishal Enterprise, being the proprietorship of the assessee, turning a blind eye by the officers to the said aspect and refusing to recognize the assessee as deemed owner of the goods being the consignee cannot be sustained. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 231
• Margo Brush India & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., Writ Tax No. 1580 of 2022, dated 16.1.2023
• Green India v. State of U.P. (2024) 160 taxmann.com 349
• Ram India Company v. State of U.P. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 164, relied on.

List of Cases Referred to

• Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 231/[2024] 101 GST 313/80 GSTL 357 (Allahabad) (para 3)
• Green India v. State of U.P. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 349/103 GST 15/84 GSTL 33 (Allahabad) (para 3)
• Ram India Company v. State of U.P. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 164/106 GST 323/90 GSTL 227 (Allahabad) (para 3).