Back
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
Joint Commissioner of State Tax (I&E), Ernakulam – Appellant
Versus
Sasi Pathirakunnath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner (appeals) under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (‘the CGST/SGST Act’ for short) and Rules made thereunder. The State Tax Officer, Squad No. 1 SGST Department Ernakulam, while conducting vehicle checking on 07.09.2021, received intimation from the Railway Protection Force, Ernakulam regarding the transport of gold by Mr. Nikhil Suresh without any documents as required under the provisions of CGST/SGST Act. On inspection, the carrier failed to produce documents to prove the genuineness of the gold ornaments under the transportation.
2. The railway protection team handed over the gold ornaments to the State Tax Officer and issued a summons. The statement of the carrier was recorded. After knowing the detention of the gold ornaments and issuance of notices to the respondent, the respondent appeared before the adjudicating officer and filed objections. However, the respondent failed to produce any documents. Hence, the State Tax Officer issued notices proposing to confiscate the gold ornaments
The appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST/SGST Act has the jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the adjudicating authority in imposing the fine in lieu of confis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gold in question was not a prohibited item and should be offered for redemption in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act.
Definition of the term market value clearly indicates that the term is not referable to the maximum retail price and on the contrary, it is a sale price that is agreed to between a bonafide supplier ....
Under the Customs Act, 1962, while the burden of proof regarding the licit nature of seized gold rests on the possessor under S.123, the confiscation of Indian currency as alleged 'sale proceeds' und....
(1) Personal interests of importers who made improper imports are pitted against interests of national economy and more particularly, interests of farmers. Imposition of penalty on such importers is ....
Under Section 15 of the Act, the value of the supply of goods would be the transaction value and a transaction value would be the price that is paid or payable for the supply of goods.Q
The court ruled that an adjudicating authority must diligently exercise discretion regarding confiscation of unauthorized funds as per statutory provisions and not based on hardship alone.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
