HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD RESERVED ON 12.09.2025 DELIVERED ON 22.09.2025 WRIT TAX No. - 1318 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Parth Goswami, holding brief of Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petitioner has been filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2022 passed by respondent no. 3/the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-6 State-4 Goods & Service Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) as well as the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 2/the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 State Tax (Appeal-3), State Goods and Service Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that old hydrolic Exhibator was going for repairing after completion job work. After being repaired, the same was sent alongwith the delivery challan and e-way bill was specifically generated on 14.07.2022 but the same was intercepted and seized by the respondent no. 3/Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-6, Section4 State Goods and Service Tax, Gautam Budha Nagar. Seizure order was issued in GST MOV- 06 mentioning the ground "afterthought". On 14.07.2022 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply and alongwith reply, bilty, e-way bill, delivery challan were again produced. 4. Not being satisfied, an order was passed on 16.07.2022 by the respondent Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parth Goswami, Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Abhay Prakash Katariar .....Petitioner(s) State Of UP And 2 Other .....Respondent(s) no.3 demanding Rs. 3,42,000/- for release of the same. Thereafter, the proceedings under section 129 (3) of the Rules framed under the GST Act, imposing tax penalty amounting of Rs.3,42,000/-. The petitioner against which an appeal was filed which was dismissed without considering the material on record. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the goods in question is an Exhibator, no proceeding under section 129(3) of the GST Act ought to have been initiated against the petitioner. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Circular dated 07.07.2017 and 22.11.2017 and submits that Circular issued by the Central Government of India are binding upon the authorities. He further submits that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that alongwith goods in question, no document was produced at the time of interception but it was produced subsequently. No documents were produced by the petitioner, therefore, action taken against the petitioner, is justified. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that goods in question was a hydrolic Exhibator at the time of interception and at the time of passing of seizure order, only bilty no. 2358 was available. The Central Government issued a Circular wherein it has been declared that where crane is being sent for repair and same shall now be treated as supply or services and therefore, not levelable to tax under GST Act and same was reiterated by Circular Dated 22.11.2017. 10. It has been submitted that once a crane was sent for repairing that cannot be treated as supply or services and therefore, GST Act is not levelable. Once there is no liability for GST, the requirement for carrying the requisite document and seizure order is not required at all. 11. In view of the Circular issued by the Government, which is binding upon the authorities, as held in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vodadara vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries, 2002 (143) ELT 19 (SC) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur vs. M/s Ratan Melting & Wire WTAX No. 1318 of 2024 2 Industries, (2008) 231 ELT 22 (S.C.). 12. The impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by respondent no. 3/the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-6 State-4 Goods & Service Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar and the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 2/the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 State Tax (Appeal- 3), State Goods and Service Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. September 22, 2025 Monika WTAX No. 1318 of 2024 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad