AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. 2250 of 2026 · Allahabad High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, present petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- UPGST Act, 2017 s. 129(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to obtain clear written instructions from respondent no.3 to indicate if any penalty order has been passed in the case of the petitioner. In any case, copy of complete order sheet of detained/seizure/penalty…
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2250 of 2026 M/S Baijnath Agarwal State Of U.P. And 2 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Sharma : C.S.C. Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
On 24.04.2026, following order had been passed: "1. Submission is that goods were detained on 18.06.2024. They were provisionally released against deposit of penalty amount under protest. That compliance was made on
22.06.2024. The vehicle and goods were released on 24.06.2024. Almost two years have passed since then. However, respondent no.3 has yet not passed the penalty order. Thus, the petitioner has been deprived of its right to establish before the appeal authority that it is not liable to penalty.
Also, it has been stated that in the other exact similar transaction penalty order has been set aside, in appeal.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to obtain clear written instructions from respondent no.3 to indicate if any penalty order has been passed in the case of the petitioner. In any case, copy of complete order sheet of detained/seizure/penalty proceedings would be produced alongwith written instructions. The written instructions would also reveal full details of the officer who may have held the post of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-4 (Mobile Squad-6), Kanpur Nagar from the date of detention of goods till date, duration wise.
Put up as fresh on 07.05.2026.".
2. Today, it has been informed by learned Standing Counsel, in view of the last order passed, proceedings have been concluded and penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, has been passed by 2 WTAX No. 2250 of 2026 respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, on 04.05.2026.
Operative part
3. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed as infructuous leaving it open to the petitioner to avail its statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated 04.05.2026. (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) May 7, 2026 Prakhar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, present petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
UPGST Act, 2017 — s. 129(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.