Case Details: Maruti Enterprises vs. State of U.P. (2026) 43 Centax 170 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Saumitra Dayal Singh & Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Aditya Pandey & Shubham Agrawal, Counsels, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Anoop Trivedi, AAG & Ankur Agarwal, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners challenged penalties imposed under Section 129(1)(d) of the CGST Act and the Uttar Pradesh GST Act on goods transported from West Bengal to Delhi through Uttar Pradesh. One of the petitioners, registered in Delhi, purchased goods from West Bengal under a tax invoice and a valid e-way bill. While the goods were in transit through Uttar Pradesh, the vehicle was intercepted on the ground that the consignment was not accompanied by an e-Tax Invoice, though the supplier admitted the default. The petitioners contended that Uttar Pradesh was only the transit State and had neither originated nor received the supply. They submitted that the Uttar Pradesh authorities could verify the documents and intimate the authorities of the originating or destination State, but could not detain the goods or impose penalty. The department relied upon cross-empowerment and enforcement powers. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the authorities of a transit State were competent to intercept and verify goods moving through its territory. However, it held that detention of goods or imposition of penalty under Section 129 required tax incidence within Uttar Pradesh, which was absent as Uttar Pradesh was neither the originating nor the destination State. The Court further held that the plea of cross-empowerment was misconceived, as any such issue could arise only in the State of West Bengal or Delhi to which the inter-State transaction related. It held that the absence of an e-Tax Invoice could only be recorded and intimated to the authorities of West Bengal or Delhi and could not justify detention of goods or imposition of penalty by the Uttar Pradesh authorities. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, the penalties were quashed, and the goods and vehicles were directed to be released.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate — (2025) 33 Centax 222 (S.C.) = 2025 (101) G.S.T.L. 289 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 9, 38]
- ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2025) 32 Centax 446 (S.C.) = 2025 (100) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 9, 41, 42]
- G.K. Trading Company v. Union of India — 2021 (51) G.S.T.L. 288 (All.) — Referred [Para 39]
- Golden Traders v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax — (2026) 42 Centax 24 (A.P.) = 2026 (109) G.S.T.L. 20 (A.P.) — Referred [Para 43]
- J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer — (1994) 4 SCC 276 — Referred [Para 35]
- State of Bihar v. Harihar Prasad Debuka — (1989) 2 SCC 192 — Referred [Para 10]
- State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals — (2002) 1 SCC 279 — Referred [Para 11]
