Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Banaras Industries – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Piyush Agrawal, J.)
Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record. Parcha filed by Shri K.J. Shukla on behalf of the Union of India is also taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents and learned counsel for the Union of India.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.5.2022 passed by the respondent No. 5 under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act as well as the impugned order dated 10.4.2023 passed by the first appellate authority, the respondent No. 4.
4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being decided finally without calling for the counter-affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel (ingot, patri, channel, etc.). On 23.11.2021, an inspection/search under Section 67 of the GST Act was c
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.
For proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act, there must be intent to evade tax established; a mere technical breach does not warrant penalties.
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Discrepancies in documentation related to gold transport can warrant proceedings under tax laws, providing grounds for suspicion of tax evasion.
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
Listen Article