2021 (5) TMI 935 - Commissioner - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the conveyance - Quantity loaded in the conveyance found excess than the quantity mentioned in the invoice - HELD THAT - It is found from the records that the quantity of goods in the conveyance found excess than the quantity mentioned in the invoice. Less quantity of goods shown in the invoice with intent to evade the GST and tried to escape from correct liability. The contention of the appellant cannot be agreed with that the measurement taken by the officers was wrong and unjustified and copy of calculation of quantity has not been served and the proceedings under Section 130 is wrong and illegal and only one fine i.e. on goods or conveyance can be imposed under the said section - it is clear that the impugned goods found excess i.e. quantity 3947 Sq. Ft on physical verification than the quantity mentioned in invoice were loaded intentionally to evade the GST. The excess quantity was supplied without declaring in the invoice with intent to evade the payment of tax therefore the Section 130 of the Act was rightly invoked and the said section also provides for confiscation of goods or conveyance and find in lieu of confiscation. The excess found goods were loaded intentionally to evade the payment of GST - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original passed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-F, Bharatpur.
2. Confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Grounds of appeal challenging the impugned order.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the hearing process.
5. Confirmation of demand of tax, penalty, and fines based on discrepancies in goods quantity.
6. Interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
7. Allegation of intentional evasion of GST payment through excess loading of goods.
8. Decision on the appeal filed by the appellant.

The appeal was filed against an order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-F, Bharatpur, concerning the confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant, involved in trading stones of marbles and granite, had discrepancies in the quantity loaded in a conveyance intercepted by CGST officers. The goods and conveyance were detained, and the appellant claimed ownership and deposited tax, penalty, and charges for release. The adjudicating authority proposed confiscation of goods and conveyance, leading to an appeal by the appellant.

The appellant challenged the impugned order on various grounds, including objections against confiscation, incorrect measurement, lack of intention to evade tax, and the imposition of fines. Despite multiple opportunities for a hearing, the appellant failed to appear, leading to a decision based on available records. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand based on discrepancies in goods quantity between the invoice and physical verification.

The interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 was crucial in this case. The section allows for confiscation of goods and conveyance with the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The appellant contested the measurement discrepancies and the legality of the proceedings under Section 130. However, the authority found the excess loading intentional to evade GST payment, justifying the confiscation and fines imposed.

The decision on the appeal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appellant's arguments. The authority concluded that the excess loading of goods was deliberate to evade GST payment, affirming the confiscation and fines imposed. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings and interpretation of relevant legal provisions.