9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions, Determination of Value of Supply rules have been prescribed in CGST Rules, 2017. In GST, tax is payable on ad valorem basis, i.e. percentage of value of the supply of goods or services. Section 15 of the CGST Act and Rule 27 to Rule 35 of CGST Rules, 2017 contain provisions related to valuation of supply of goods or services made in different circumstances and to different persons. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15 of CGST Act, 2017 The value of a supply of goods or services or both shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bearing Registration No. RJ-19-GF-6348 was intercepted in movement at Sikandara Toll Plaza, by the Officers of CGST Commissionerate, Alwar. The statement of the Driver/Person-in-Charge, of the vehicle was also recorded on 9-10-2018. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found :- (a) Bill was generated on undervaluation with intent to evade tax. 2.2 Therefore, calculation were made on the basis of physical verification, the total value of goods arrived at ₹ 6,22,767/- and GST payable is ₹ 1,12,098/-. Whereas, as per invoice produced by the Person-in-charge/Driver of the vehicle, the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay short paid IGST, penalty and redemption fine on impugned goods and vehicle, claiming the goods in the conveyance RJ-19-GF-6348. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. The adjudicating authority apart from confirming the demand of short paid IGST amounting to ₹ 67,637/- also imposed equal penalty of 100% IGST amounting to ₹ 67,637/-, and also imposed redemption fine of ₹ 67,637/- on impugned goods and ₹ 67,637/- on conveyance used to transport of impugned goods. The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing of tax, penalty and redemption fines. The owner of the goods i.e. M/s. G.C. Tiles, 3401, Opp. : Water Tank, Jaiprakash Nagar, Baria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority to levy tax ₹ 44,461/- + 67,637/- Total ₹ 1,12,098/-, Penalty of ₹ 67,637/- and fines of ₹ 1,35,274/- whereby the supply is out to out State by the supplier and neither the consignor nor consignee belongs to the State of Rajasthan. In the above context, the appellant has also submitted various case laws in support of their contention which may be summarised as under : (i) Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay - AIR 1953 SC 325 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1284 (S.C.), (ii) S.A. International v. Collector of Customs - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 445 (Cal). (iii) M/s. D.J. Malpani v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, Civil Appeal No. 5282 of 2005 [2006 (193) E.L.T. A23 (S.C.)], Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant in the appeal memorandum as well as additional written submission dated 12-2-2020 at the time of personal hearing. 6. I find that the department has made the case against the appellant on the ground that the appellant had cleared the goods on considerably lesser value keeping in view the MRP marked on goods with intent to evade tax and the total value of goods has arrived at ₹ 6,22,767/- on the basis of MRP on which GST payable is ₹ 1,12,098/-. Whereas, as per invoice available with the person-in charge/driver of conveyance the total value of goods is ₹ 2,47,005/- and GST payable is ₹ 44,461/-. Now, the issue to be decided is whether the goods detained/seized by the department is undervalued or otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply . In the instant case before me nothing was brought on record by the adjudicating authority to substantiate that the appellant has undervalued the goods and value declared by the appellant is not a true value in terms of Section 15(1) of CGST Act, 2017. No investigation was made by the concerned authority and simply on the basis of MRP the case was made for undervaluation. In GST law there is no provisions for determination of value on the basis of MRP. Therefore, the order passed by the adjudicating authority is contrary to the provision of CGST Act, 2017 and not sustainable. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the legal provisions I hereby set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
