The Supreme Court has dismissed the Uttar Pradesh government’s special leave petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order directing the release of scrap old batteries and the vehicle carrying them.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi has observed that the consignment had been detained while passing through Uttar Pradesh during transportation from Assam to Rajasthan, with the High Court recording that the detention and penalty arose from doubts concerning the supplier’s supplier.
Buy Now: 210+ GST Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but dismissed it after noting that a similar matter had already been dismissed on October 16, 2026. The dismissal leaves the High Court’s direction for release of the goods and vehicle undisturbed.
The dispute concerned scrap old batteries being transported from Assam to Rajasthan in a truck bearing registration number RJ37 GC 4047. Uttar Pradesh was a transit State on the route.
According to the High Court’s order, the goods were detained and a penalty was imposed because of doubts about the “supplier of the supplier”. The company approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the action.
The department submitted that the company could pursue the relief before the appropriate forum and that the writ petition should therefore not be entertained.
The State made this submission without prejudice to its right to appeal against the judgment in Maruti Enterprises.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran, however, found that the legal issues appeared to have already been raised and decided in the taxpayer’s favour in that decision.
The Bench also considered the timing of the proceedings. The company had filed its writ petition on May 16, 2026, merely two days after the decision in Maruti Enterprises. The High Court referred to the legality of the detention and imposition of penalty having been under active consideration.
In these circumstances, the High Court held that the bar of alternative remedy stood lifted. Its conclusion was based on the particular facts and the existence of a coordinate Bench ruling covering the legal issues.
High Court Directed Release Of Goods And Vehicle
By its order dated May 29, 2026, the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition for the reasons contained in Maruti Enterprises.
The operative direction expressly required the release of the goods and truck bearing registration number RJ37 GC 4047.
The High Court adopted the reasoning of the earlier decision rather than undertaking a separate, detailed examination of the detention and penalty provisions in its short order.
The Court also disposed of pending applications, if any.
The Supreme Court’s order does not independently analyse the detention dispute or identify the parties to the earlier similar matter. Its stated reason for dismissal is the prior dismissal of that matter.
The outcome preserves the High Court’s relief in a case involving goods transported between two States and detained in a transit State because of doubts concerning an upstream supplier.
The High Court’s order also illustrates that, on the particular facts, an alternative remedy objection did not prevent it from entertaining a writ petition where a coordinate Bench had already decided the legal issues in the taxpayer’s favour.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Import IGST Credit Can’t Be Denied For Wrong GSTR-3B Reporting: GSTAT
