9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1273 - HC - GSTQuantum of penalty - Demand of penalty at the higher rate being 100 percent of the value of the goods under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - On query made, learned counsel for the revenue has made a fair statement, it cannot be doubted, the petitioner is the bona-fide owner of the goods. Accordingly, the penalty order is modified to the extent penalty imposed. Quantum is reduced in terms of provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act i.e. equal to twice the amount of tax imposed on the value of the goods, as estimated by the revenue authorities. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the demand of penalty at a higher rate under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 and the modification of the penalty order based on the claim of the petitioners. Challenge to Penalty Demand: The petitioners challenged the demand of penalty at a higher rate of 100 percent of the value of the goods under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act, claiming to be the owners of the goods and entitled to release against payment of a lesser security under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioners were opposed to the quantum of penalty, not the detention of goods. The Court found the revenue authority's stand to be harsh and unreasonable, considering that the goods were inspected in transit, causing a delay in the petitioners' representation to the detaining authority. The Court held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue authority by considering the petitioners' claim at this stage, pending the outcome of the appeal against the penalty order. The petitioner did not dispute the levy of penalty, only the quantum was in dispute. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that the petitioner was the bona fide owner of the goods. Consequently, the penalty order was modified to reduce the quantum of penalty to twice the amount of tax imposed on the value of the goods, as estimated by the revenue authorities. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petition with the modification of the penalty order, reducing the penalty imposed on the petitioners in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Act.
|
