Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143407 Reserved On:30.07.2025 Delivered On:21.08.2025 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjit Gupta,Naveen Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anoop Trivedi, AAG, Ravi Shankar Pandey, ACSC WITH Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3172 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjit Gupta,Naveen Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anoop Trivedi, AAG, Ravi Shankar Pandey, ACSC HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J.

1. Heard Shri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

2. Since learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. With the consent of the parties, Writ Tax No. 3171 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions.

Writ Tax No. 3171 of 2025

3. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.06.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the goods in question were in transit from Delhi to Raipur along with tax invoice and GR, but the same were intercepted at Jhansi (UP) on 26.05.2025; whereby, proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST/CGST/IGST Act were initiated and MOV – 01 was issued on 27.05.2025. On 01.06.2025, MOV – 04 was issued. He further submits that thereafter, MOV – 06 was issued on 01.06.2025 and GST DRC – 01 was issued on 03.06.2025. He further submits that once the goods were detained on 26.05.2025 and the show cause notice has been issued after a week, i.e., 7 days, the entire proceedings are vitiated. He further submits that the authorities are duty-bound to follow the provisions of the GST Act. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Madras High Court in M/s D.K. Enterprises Vs. The Assistant Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Others [(2022) 107 GSTR 331 (Mad)].

5. He next submits that due to inadvertent mistake of the truck driver, the document could not be produced at the time of detention as all the documents were accompanying the goods and therefore, the orders passed under section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act are bad and the same ought to have been passed under section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act as the petitioners being the owner of the goods.

6. He further submits that after passing of the penalty order, an application was moved under Rule 112 of the GST Rules, which ought to have been allowed.

7. He next submits that since the goods were moving from Delhi to Raipur, the State authorities are not competent to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners by way of seizure of the goods. Relying upon section 4 of the IGST Act, he submits that until and unless the Government, on the recommendation of the council, issues a notification, the action of the State authorities are bad.

He further submits that where the State authorities were authorized to discharge their duties of the IGST, a notification has been issued. He relies on the notification no. 11 of 2017 dated 23.01.2018 with regard to refund. He further submits that in absence of any such notification, the action is bad.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that perusal of section 6 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 20 of the CGST Rules or section 4 of the IGST Act, it is abundant clear that no specific notification is required for authorizing the State authorities as suggested by the counsel for the petitioners. He further submits that the language of sections are