9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 71 - HC - GSTValidity of assessment order - excess stock - confiscation of goods on the basis of eye measurement - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the survey was made on 24.08.2018 in which alleged excess stock was found then the proceedings were initiated - This Court on various occasions has held that if the excess stock was found then the proceedings under Sections 73 74 of the UPGST Act will come into play and not proceedings under Section 130 read with Rule 122 of the Act. This Court in M/s Shree Om Steels Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and Another 2024 (7) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that even if excess stock is found, the proceedings under section 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated. The impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 24.03.2022 passed in GST Appeal No.28/2020, Assessment Year 2018-19. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in trading of Cement, Mauram, and Saria, challenged the order based on a survey conducted on 24.08.2018, where excess stock was found without proper procedure. The petitioner argued that proceedings should have followed Sections 73 & 74 of the UPGST Act instead of Section 130. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment (Writ Tax No. 1007 of 2022) to support the claim. The respondent, however, supported the impugned order. The Court noted the survey findings and emphasized that proceedings under Sections 73 & 74 should apply in cases of excess stock, not Section 130. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the need for proper assessment and penalty determination under the relevant sections of the Act. The Court specifically mentioned that Section 130 proceedings cannot be initiated even if excess stock is found, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures for tax assessment and penalty imposition. The Court set aside the impugned order, stating it cannot sustain under the law, and allowed the writ petition challenging the order.
|
