Stay updated
THE HON’BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Dee Control And Electric Pvt. Ltd. V/s Additional Commissioner Grade-2
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Additional Commissioner Grade-2 & Another held that where a stock discrepancy is discovered during the survey of a registered dealer, the initiation of confiscation and penalty proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act is unsustainable. Such issues must be addressed through assessment and recovery proceedings under Sections 73 or 74. The SLP against the Allahabad High Court’s judgment was dismissed, thereby upholding the High Court’s view.
THE HON’BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar V/s Additional Commissioner Grade 2, State Tax, decided on 25-7-2024
THE HON’BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PP PolyplastPvt. Ltd. V/s Additional Commissioner Grade 2, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh Writ Tax No. 1183 of 2024, decided on 30-7-2024
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in J.T. Steel Traders held that proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated solely on the basis of finding excess stock during survey; instead, proceedings under sections 73 or 74 should be adopted.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mathai M.V. held that a confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act without valid service of notice on the vehicle owner in the prescribed statutory modes is void and non-est in law.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Mataji Industries held that the confiscation of goods and conveyance, and the consequential demand of tax, penalty, and fine, based on a clerical mismatch in the tax invoice, was unsustainable, and directed refund of the amount paid by the Petitioner.
The Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of M/s Gajanand Granite held that the confiscation proceedings initiated and concluded on the same day without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and merely relying on the statement of the driver of the vehicle are in violation of the mandate prescribed in Section 130 (4) of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Maa Amila Coal Depot held that proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated in cases where excess stock is found and thus the confiscation and penalty proceedings initiated under Section 130 were quashed, directing for refund of any amount already deposited.
The Department can proceed under Section 35(6) or 73 or 74 of the UPGST Act instead of Section 130 of the UPGST Act, for excess stock of material on the basis of eye estimation during inspection.