9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 743 - HC - GSTIncrease in valuation of goods - error of law on the part of Revenue in artificially distinguishing the identity of the goods and their valuation - HELD THAT - Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners shall have two weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit - In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing tax and 50% of penalty as well as furnishing security of remaining 50% of penalty within a period of two weeks from today, in the prescribed manner and in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 140 of UPGST Rules, 2017, on the valuation disclosed in the invoice, the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner. List thereafter.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge against orders passed by revenue authorities under IGST Act and CGST Act regarding goods valuation and seizure. 2. Allegation of error of law in distinguishing goods identity and valuation. 3. Failure to follow proper adjudication proceedings for disturbing valuation. 4. Reliance on previous judgments regarding seizure of goods. 5. Request for constitution of appellate tribunal in U.P. 6. Request for release of goods and vehicle upon depositing tax, penalty, and security. Analysis: 1. The petition challenges orders passed by the revenue authorities under the IGST Act and CGST Act related to the valuation of goods and seizure. The petitioner's counsel argues that the goods were properly accounted for with valid documents, and there was no justification for the authorities to artificially distinguish the goods' identity and valuation. The counsel asserts that the valuation increase was done against the provisions of the law without following the required procedures. 2. It is contended that the revenue authorities did not have sufficient grounds to doubt the valuation, and any adjustment to the valuation should have been done through proper adjudication proceedings, which were not followed in this case. The counsel cites precedents to support the argument that as a registered dealer, the petitioner's goods should not have been seized solely based on technical grounds such as the absence of an e-way bill. 3. Additionally, the petitioner expresses willingness to deposit the tax and penalty amount. The counsel raises the issue of the absence of an appellate tribunal in U.P. as per the UPGST Act, seeking the court's intervention in this matter. 4. The court acknowledges the submissions and grants time for the respondents to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner is given the opportunity to file a rejoinder affidavit within the specified timeframe. The court conditions the release of the goods and vehicle upon the petitioner depositing the tax, 50% of the penalty, and furnishing security for the remaining penalty amount as per the provisions of the U.P. GST Act and Rules. 5. Furthermore, the court instructs the petitioner to submit a computer-generated copy of the order from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, self-attested along with an identity proof linked to a mobile number. The authenticity of the order will be verified by the concerned Court/Authority/Official from the official website, and a written declaration of verification will be made. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the legal challenges raised by the petitioner regarding the valuation of goods, the seizure of goods, and the procedural aspects under the relevant GST Acts. The court provides directions for the release of the goods and vehicle upon compliance with the specified conditions and emphasizes the verification process for the submitted documents.
|
