Back
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, MANJIVE SHUKLA
Green India – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
At the outset, Shri. Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner states, the petitioner is willing to obtain release of the goods without prejudice of his rights to contest the penalty proceedings.
2. In that regard, it has been submitted, undisputedly, the petitioner is a registered person and the owner of the goods. Therefore, in any case, goods are liable to be released in his favour in terms of the provision of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017. To that, there can be no dispute.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioner is the consignee of the goods. The transaction disclosed to the revenue authorities was one of job work return to the petitioner (a registered dealer in the State of Haryana) from a dealer in Daurala. The goods were intercepted during movement through the State of Uttar Pradesh. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee. Penalty order has also been passed against the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee. The case of the revenue is that the petitioner has also prepared delivery challan of job worker and therefore, the penalty
A registered owner of goods is entitled to their release under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, subject to security equal to 200% of the tax on the goods.
Intention to evade tax must be established for imposing a penalty under GST Act; misclassification of penalty type leads to legal error.
The court determined that compliance with documentation allows a transporter to be regarded as the owner of goods, affecting the imposition of penalties under the C.G.S.T. Act.
The court affirmed the right to a hearing before the seizure of property, emphasizing the need for due process in administrative actions.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
The court modified the penalty imposed under the U.P. G.S.T. Act, reducing it from 100% to twice the tax amount, finding the original penalty excessive.
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
