IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
M/S S.K.Traders - Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. - 789 OF 2023.
Decided On : 23-04-2024
JUDGMENT
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated April 6, 2023 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit, Fatehpur and the order dated May 16, 2023 passed by the respondent No.1/Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, (Appeal), Judicial Division-Third, State Tax, Prayagraj.
2. I have heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the materials on record.
3. A perusal of the record shows that the ground for imposing penalty in the present case is that the goods were under valuation. This Court in the case of M/s Shambhu Saran Agarwal and Company v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 and others (Writ Tax No.33 of 2022 decided on January 31, 2024) has categorically held as under:
4. In the above case, this Court had referred to a judgment of Kerala High Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Private Limited v. Assistant State Tax Officer reported in 2020 NTN (73)-58 to hold that imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that the goods are under valued cannot be allowed. In such cases, it is for the officer intercepting the goods to detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers for effective transmission to the judicial assessing officers and nothing beyond the same.
5. In light of the above, impugned orders April 6, 2023 and May 16, 2023 are quashed and set aside. Consequential reliefs to follow. In the event any deposit has been made by the petitioner to the authorities, the same shall be returned to the petitioner within four weeks from date.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Penalties for under valuation of goods under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act cannot be imposed without proper notice as per Sections 73 or 74.
Detention of goods for under valuation without following statutory procedures under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act is invalid, and penalties imposed on such grounds cannot be upheld.
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 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.
Penalties under tax law cannot be imposed without clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, especially amid rapid legislative changes causing confusion.
The absence of requisite documentation, such as the E-way Bill, does not justify detention and consequent penalties when prior judicial authority negates such action.
Production of rectifying documents before detention of goods negates grounds for penalty under GST rules, reaffirming procedural fairness.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.