Case Details: Shiva Enterprises vs. State of U.P. (2026) 42 Centax 316 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Saumitra Dayal Singh & Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ.
- Shri Aditya Pandey, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a partnership firm registered in Bihar, transported walnuts to a purchaser in Delhi through Uttar Pradesh. During transit, the goods were intercepted, leading to detention proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act and the Uttar Pradesh GST Act. The assessee challenged the penalty proceedings on the grounds that, following the 2021 amendment to section 129 of the CGST Act, a notice had to be issued within 7 days of detention. Furthermore, the order was to be passed within seven days of the service of the notice. Both actions, however, had been taken beyond the prescribed period. The issue before the High Court was whether these timelines were mandatory, thereby invalidating the proceedings, or merely directory.
High Court Held
The High Court held that section 129 did not provide any statutory consequence for breach of the seven-day timelines prescribed for the issuance of notice and passing of the order. The absence of such a consequence, read in conjunction with the objective of procedural efficiency, indicated that these timelines were directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, a delay in the issuance of notice or passing of order did not render the action time-barred or invalid. However, any delay must be explained through order sheet entries or formal communications.
List of Cases Cited
- Allcargo Logistics Ltd. v. State of Gujarat — (2026) 38 Centax 110 (Guj.) = 2026 (105) G.S.T.L. 277 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Ankit Kamboj v. State of U.P. — (2024) 84 NTN DX 9 — Referred [Para 10]
- ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2025) 32 Centax 446 (S.C.) = 2025 (100) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
- Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar v. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar — (2005) 2 SCC 188 — Referred [Para 24]
- Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad Goenka — 1962 SCC OnLine SC 93 — Referred [Para 22]
- Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise v. Sri Ram Piston & Rings — 2019 (369) E.L.T. 631 (All.) — Referred [Para 35]
- D.K. Enterprises v. Asstt./Deputy Commissioner (ST) Adjudication, Intelligence-I — (2023) 3 Centax 3 (Mad.) = 2023 (70) G.S.T.L. 277 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 10]
- Dove Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Inv. Corpn. — (2006) 2 SCC 619 — Referred [Para 26]
- Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee — (1975) 2 SCC 482 — Referred [Para 7]
- Kailash v. Nankhu — (2005) 4 SCC 480 — Referred [Para 25]
- Khatu Enterprises v. State of Gujarat — (2025) 36 Centax 242 (Guj.) = 2025 (104) G.S.T.L. 364 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Lakshmanasami Gounder v. CIT — (1992) 1 SCC 91 — Referred [Para 11]
- Mahadev Govind Gharge v. LAO — (2011) 6 SCC 321 — Referred [Para 28]
- Pawan Carrying Corporation v. State of Bihar — (2024) 16 Centax 405 (Pat.) = 2024 (84) G.S.T.L. 14 (Pat.) — Referred [Para 10]
- P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir — 2003 (8) SCC 498 — Referred [Para 11]
- Ram Deen Maurya (Dr.) v. State of U.P. — (2009) 6 SCC 735 — Referred [Para 27]
- Rama Devi v. State of U.P. — 2018 SCC OnLine All 7700 — Referred [Para 32]
- Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur — 1964 SCC Online SC 119 — Referred [Para 23]
- RSL Overseas LLP v. State of Odisha — (2024) 24 Centax 45 (Ori.) — Referred [Para 10]
- SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. — (2019) 12 SCC 210 — Referred [Para 31]
- Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone — AIR 1980 SC 303 — Referred [Para 11]
- State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya — 1960 SCC Online SC 5 — Referred [Para 21]
- State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya — AIR 1961 SC 751 — Referred [Para 11]
- Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank — (2002) 6 SCC 33 — Referred [Para 30]
- Vikas Trivedi v. State of U.P. — (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1193 — Referred [Para 32]
- Vivek Kumar Sharma v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad 2023:AHC:159984-DB — Referred [Para 33]
