HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1465 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the actions of the respondent authorities with regard to detention of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner as well as subsequent orders passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "CGST Act") read with Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. At the outset, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has restricted the prayers made in the writ petition to the proceeding initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act. 3. The main issue in this writ petition is whether the goods may be released by the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the goods and, therefore, goods are to be released as per Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act read with IGST Act while the authorities have made the calculation under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act by an order dated November 01, 2025. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB). He has further relied on a judgement of this Court passed in Writ Tax No.1464 of 2022 [S/S S.K. Trading Co And Another vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) And Another, decided on March 16, 2024 (Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:66095)], wherein the Court has held that the enhancement of valuation cannot be done under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and the penalty to be levied under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Mahadev Traders Thru. Partner Mr.Raj Kumar Jha .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Institutional Finance And Another .....Respondent(s) would have to be on the basis of invoice/e-way bill. 6. Counsel for the respondent authorities has supported the actions of the authorities and stated that the actions taken by the authorities were correct in law. 7. On a bare perusal of the record and the judgments cited above, we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act. 8. Accordingly, the order passed by the authorities dated November 01, 2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with IGST Act within a period of three weeks from today on the basis of valuation as specified in the invoice. 9. As the petitioner has not pressed for the other prayers in the writ petition, the same may be pursued by it before the appropriate forum. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. December 9, 2025 Satish WTAX No. 1465 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench