Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
J. H. V. Steels Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.-Rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents and Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Union of India.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.7.2019 passed by the respondent No. 5 under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act as well as the impugned order dated 19.8.2023 passed by the first appellate authority, the respondent No. 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel. On 30.11.2018, an inspection/search under Section 67 of the GST Act was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner by the SIB and proceedings under the GST Act were initiated by issuing notice. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 18.7.2019 has been passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been partly allowed vide impugned order dated 19.8.2023. He further submits that
Proceedings under Section 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated if excess stock is found; the proper procedure must follow Sections 73 and 74 for tax determination.
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.
A show cause notice issued under the GST Act based on an investigation by an improper officer is invalid and must be set aside.
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
