Search and Seizure of Godown Can’t Result in Penalty Proceedings Under Section 129 of CGST Act | HC

Case Details: Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State of U.P. - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
• Shubham Agrawal for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in trading of goods. The proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017 were initiated subsequent to search of the business premises of the petitioner. It filed writ petition against the demand order and contended that search and seizure of godown cannot result in penalty proceedings under Section 129.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 8 (Allahabad) held that search and seizure of the godown cannot result in penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the Act.

Therefore, the Court held that the present proceedings were not justified and the impugned penalty order was liable to be set aside. The Court also directed the department to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks.