Facts of the case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the order issued by the State GST authorities and sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue Form GST MOV-09 / DRC-07 on the GST common portal, in accordance with Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13 April 2018 issued by the CBIC. The petitioner’s vehicle carrying goods had earlier been intercepted under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. In order to secure release of the goods, the petitioner deposited the amount of penalty under protest, which was duly reflected in Form GST DRC-03. 

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application requesting issuance of Form GST MOV-09 (order of penalty) so as to enable him to contest the levy in appeal. However, the application was rejected by the proper officer, stating that once the penalty amount had been deposited, there was no necessity to issue an order in Form MOV-09. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Aries Agro Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , which had held that failure to issue a penalty order in Form MOV-09, even after payment of penalty under protest, is illegal.

Issue:

Whether the GST authorities are mandatorily required to issue an order in Form GST MOV-09 (order of penalty under Section 129) even when the taxpayer has already deposited the penalty amount — particularly when such payment is made under protest — in order to enable the taxpayer to exercise the right of appeal.

Held that: 

The Court held that once the penalty amount has been paid under protest, the authorities are duty-bound to pass a penalty order in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3) of the Act. Even if the amount is not expressly marked “under protest,” the officer cannot avoid passing the order, since non-issuance of MOV-09 deprives the taxpayer of the right to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The contention of the department that no order is required once payment is made was rejected. The absence of a formal order violates the statutory right of appeal and principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and the consequential Form DRC-05 and directed the department to issue the penalty order in Form GST MOV-09 within the prescribed time. The Allahabad High Court allowed the petition, following its earlier Division Bench decision in M/s Aries Agro Limited and  affirmation by the Supreme Court in M/s ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 

Case Name: M/s Uflex Limited Versus Union Of India And 3 Others dated 03.11.2025

To read the complete judgement 2025 Taxo.online 2825