Bindal Smelting Private Limited Vs Commissioner
Date: July 17, 2025
Subject Matter
Excess Stock Case: Coercive Action Stayed On Deposit Of 10% Tax
Summary
The Allahabad High Court has issued an interim order to restrain coercive recovery proceedings against Bindal Smelting Private Limited. The petitioner challenged two orders, one dated December 24, 2024, and another dated July 27, 2022, which arose from a survey of the petitioner's business premises on March 14, 2022. During the survey, authorities allegedly found excess stock and, based on this, initiated proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act, which deals with confiscation of goods.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the appropriate legal course should have been to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner's appeal against the initial orders was partially allowed. The counsel for the petitioner also cited a precedent from the same court,
M/s Gopal Trading Company Vs. State of UP, which dealt with a similar misapplication of the law. The court found that the matter requires consideration
The court has granted the respondents six weeks to file a counter affidavit and has listed the matter for a later date. In the interim, the court has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. This interim relief is conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the remaining tax liability within 15 days
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 24.12.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 27.7.2022 passed by respondent no. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that business premises of the petitioner was surveyed on 14.3.2022 in which allegedly, excess stock was found and on the said premise, the proceeding under Section 130 read with section 122 of GST Act was initiated instead of the proceeding under Section 74 of GST Act, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been partly allowed.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Gopal Trading Company Vs. State of UP (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:73498).
Matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel.
Respondents are granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner provided the petitioner deposits 10 % of the remaining amount of tax liability within a period of 15 days from today.