JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2019 whereby tax of Rs. 26,10,000/- has been assessed to be payable by the petitioner and penalty of Rs. 26,10,000/- and further fine of Rs. 25,000/- total Rs. 52,54,000/- has been assessed against the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 15.06.2020 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Company duly registered under the GST Act. It is stated that the material purchased by the petitioner are duly reflected on the portal of the department including the GSTR-3B. It is alleged that on 29.09.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur in purported exercise of powers under Section 67(1) and 67(2) of the GST Act inspected the registered business premises and drew a Panchanama on 29.09.2018 (Annexure No. 1). On the same day, a seizure memo was also prepared, which is contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

4. It is argued that the petitioner was compelled to deposit an amount of Rs. 52,20,000/- for getting the seized goods released. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with summons on 29.09.2018 and the petitioner was called upon to produce the records relating to the purchase for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner was once again issued summons under Section 70 of the Act on 27.12.2018 whereby certain documents were called from the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have produced the documents on the date fixed, however, an order came to be passed thereafter without issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner levying the tax liability of Rs. 26,10,000/- and further an amount of Rs. 26,10,000/- was determined as penalty to be paid by the petitioner and further a fine of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed, thus, a total liability of Rs. 52,45,000/- was determined to be payable under Section 130(3) of the GST Act. As the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 52,20,000/- the total balance amount payable by the petitioner came to Rs. 25,000/-. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal. The said appeal was partly allowed by means of the order dated 15.06.2020 and an amount of tax assessed against the petitioner was quantified at Rs. 7,92,405/- on which a like penalty of Rs. 7,92,405/- was imposed and thus, in terms of the appellate order, the petitioner was required to pay a total amount of Rs. 15,84,810/-. The amount paid by the petitioner in excess was directed to be refunded in accordance with law.

5. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned as well as the appellate order is bad in law for the reasons more than one. He argues that in terms of the mandate of the GST Act, although a power of search and seizure is conferred upon the authorities, the manner in which the goods were held to be in excess of the recorded goods, is wholly arbitrary. He argues that the goods were quantified only on the basis of the eye estimation, which argument of the petitioner was also accepted by the appellate authority, as is clear from the perusal of the appellate order. In the light of the same, he argues that once the appellate authority accepted the contention of the petitioner that the valuation of the goods on the basis of eye estimation was not possible, the entire proceedings ought to have been declared as null and void. He further argues that even otherwise the manner in which the appellate authority has quantified (although reduced), the demand against the petitioner has no foundation whatsoever.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that in any event while proceeding to pass an order under Section 130 of the GST Act, no power is vested in the authority to undertake the determination of liability of tax, which can only be done by taking reco