Excess Stock Findings: Invoking Sections 73 and 74 of UPGST Act, Not Section 130

Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

Reported as:

2024 (7) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Introduction

This article discusses a significant judgment delivered by the High Court (HC) in a case concerning the initiation of proceedings u/s 130, read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act. The case revolves around the issue of whether proceedings u/s 130 can be initiated against a registered dealer when excess stock is found during a survey, or whether Sections 73 and 74 of the UPGST Act should be invoked instead.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in the trading of iron and steel, challenged the impugned orders passed by the authorities u/s 130, read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act, for the assessment years 2020-21, 2019-20, and 2019-20. The petitioner argued that when a survey is conducted and excess stock is found, Sections 73 and 74 of the UPGST Act should come into play, rather than initiating proceedings u/s 130.

The petitioner's counsel contended that even if excess stock was found, the proceedings should have been initiated u/ss 73 and 74 of the UPGST Act. Furthermore, according to Section 35(6) of the UPGST Act, proceedings u/s 130 are not permissible against a registered dealer.

The respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders, arguing that the petitioner was engaged in malpractice, as evident from the survey where excess stocks were found without proper entry in the books of account. The respondent argued that since excess stock was noticed, the proceedings u/s 130, read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act, were rightly initiated against the petitioner.

Discussions and Findings of the High Court (HC)

The HC considered the judgments in M/s Metenere Ltd. Versus Union of India And Another - 2020 (12) TMI 790 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and M/s Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others - 2023 (3) TMI 1358 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

In the Metenere Limited case, the HC had held that even if excess stock is found, proceedings u/s 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated. The court had specifically stated that the proper officer is empowered to determine the liability of payment of tax u/s 35(6) after resorting to the procedure established u/s 74 of the Act.

Similarly, in the M/s Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. case, the HC had held that the demand for tax can be quantified and raised only in the manner prescribed in Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, as the case may be.

Analysis of the High Court (HC)

The HC, in the present case, relied on the precedents set by the Metenere Limited and M/s Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. cases. The court held that even if excess stock is found, proceedings u/s 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated.

The HC emphasized that the proper officer is empowered to determine the liability of payment of tax u/s 35(6) after resorting to the procedure established u/s 74 of the Act. The court stated that although unaccounted goods are deemed to be supplied u/s 35(6), the determination and quantification of tax on the deemed supply must be done in accordance with Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act.

Concluding Remarks

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law laid down by the HC in the cited cases, the court quashed the impugned orders passed by the authorities below in all the writ petitions. The HC allowed the writ petitions, holding that the initiation of proceedings u/s 130, read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act, against a registered dealer when excess stock is found, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Summary

The High Court, in this judgment, upheld the principle that when excess stock is found during a survey of a registered dealer, the proper officer should initiate proceedings u/ss 73 and 74 of the UPGST Act to determine the liability of payment of tax, rather than invoking Section 130. The court quashed the impugned orders passed u/s 130, read with Section 122 of the UPGST Act, as they were not in accordance with the established legal principles and precedents.

Full Text:

2024 (7) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT