Back
PANKAJ BHATIA
Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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
Proceedings under Section 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated for excess stock; Sections 73 and 74 must be followed for tax determination.
The burden of proof for imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods is on the Department, and the same cannot be done on estimates when physical verification could have been carried out.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedural provisions under Section 129 before invoking the order of confiscation under Section 130 of the SGST Act, ....
The court upheld the penalty imposed under the WBGST Act, ruling that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation during the transport of goods.
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
