Date of Order: 21 August 2025
Parties: Shree Maa Trading Co. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Facts –

• The petitioner's goods in transit from Delhi to Raipur were intercepted at Jhansi on 26.05.2025. Detention u/s 129 followed: MOV-01 (27.05.2025), MOV-04 and MOV-06 (01.06.2025), DRC-01 (03.06.2025).
• Petitioners argued SCN issued beyond 7 days, driver failed to produce documents though they existed, and State officers lacked IGST jurisdiction absent special notification.
• Authorities held transactions were bogus and not reflected in GST returns.

Issue –

• Whether delay in SCN invalidated proceedings and penalty could be imposed under Section 129(1)(b)?

Order –

• The single bench of the Hon’ble High court held that State GST officers are empowered to act under the IGST Act; detention/penalty under Section 129 is valid where transactions are found bogus.
• The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST
• If the invoice or any other specified document is not accompanying the consignment of goods, then in such cases, the proper officer should determine who should be declared as the owner of the goods. Once, at the time of detention or seizure, no specified documents were produced, then the proceedings have rightly been initiated agianst the petitioner in absence of specified documents under section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act for release of goods.
• The court held State GST officers competent under Section 4 IGST Act and Section 6 CGST Act; no special notification needed.
• Authorities’ finding of bogus transactions sustained; writ petitions dismissed.