Allahabad High Court
M/S BAIJNATH AGARWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous, allowing the petitioner to appeal the penalty order dated 04‑05‑2026.
Summary
The petitioner, M/s Baijnath Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging the delay in passing a penalty order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, after its goods were detained in June 2024 and released provisionally. The petition argued that the two‑year delay deprived it of the right to contest the penalty before the appellate authority. The court, after being informed that the penalty order had finally been passed on 4 May 2026, dismissed the petition as infructuous, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the order. No substantive merits of the penalty were examined; the dismissal was based solely on the pendency being resolved. The order thus leaves the matter to be decided on appeal.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition when the contested penalty order is finally passed after a prolonged delay?
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 — s. 129(3)
Subjects
- GST
- penalty order
- Section 129
- Uttar Pradesh GST Act
- writ petition
- delay in adjudication
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2250 of 2026
M/S Baijnath Agarwal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. 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.
2. Also, it has been stated that in the other exact similar transaction penalty order has been
set aside, in appeal.
3. 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 the
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.
4. 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
WTAX No. 2250 of 2026
2
respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, on 04.05.2026.
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
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…