9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mismatch, coupled with a substantial gap between the declared and verified valuation, indicated a deliberate misrepresentation. Such discrepancies undermined the accuracy of the petitioner s declarations, which are crucial for determining tax liability, justifying the imposition of penalties under the GST framework. The petitioner s failure to maintain consistent and transparent inventory records further supported the inference of intent to evade taxes. This Court emphasized that under the GST laws, the burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to demonstrate compliance with statutory provisions. In this case, the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of legitimate trade practices or demonstrate that the valuation applied by the authorities was unreasonable. This Court upheld the orders passed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities, noting that they were based on substantial evidence and a proper application of legal principles. The appellate authority s reliance on market valuation and the evidence presented was deemed reasonable and the petitioner failed to establish any procedural or legal infirmities in these orders - the petitioner s invocation of Article 19 (1) (g) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for transportation. 3. On 17.06.2024, the vehicle was intercepted by the State Tax Officer, Respondent No. 5, at Panskura, East Medinipur, NH-06. The vehicle was detained and FORM GST MOV-01 (Statement of Owner/Driver/Person-in-charge) was issued. However, the form was unsigned and lacked necessary details such as the date and driver s signature, rendering it invalid. The petitioner states that at the time of interception, the driver presented all required documents, including invoices and e-way bills. However, the documents were not handed over to the driver and the annexure was incorrectly recorded as N.A. in the document column. 4. On 17.06.2024, Respondent No. 5 conducted a physical verification and issued a report in Form GST MOV-04, which found discrepancies only in the description of the goods but no mismatch in quantity. The billed weight in the invoices matched the weight recorded during the verification, confirming the goods' quantity was correct. The description mismatch, however, was solely based on categorization differences, such as M.S. TMT Bar being described as different sizes in the report, which did not constitute any unlawful intent to evade tax. 5. Despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29 of the WBGST Act, which mandates detention of goods only when goods are transported without valid documents or in contravention of the Act. However, in this case, all the required documents, including tax invoices and e-way bills, were presented at the time of interception. The petitioner further argues that the discrepancy noted in the description of goods is a mere categorization difference and does not indicate any attempt to evade taxes. 10. The petitioner also highlights that the physical verification report conducted by Respondent No. 5 on 17.06.2024 confirms that there were no discrepancies in the quantity of the goods. The weight of the goods recorded in the physical verification report matches the weight mentioned in the invoices, further solidifying the petitioner s claim that there was no violation of law. The mismatch in the description of goods is attributed to categorization differences, which cannot be construed as fraudulent intent. 11. The petitioner asserts that the penalty imposed is arbitrary, as the tax rate was correctly declared in the invoices and e-way bills. Moreover, the notices issued by Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 3 are flawed, as they were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermine the accuracy and reliability of the declarations made by the taxpayer, which are foundational for assessing tax liability. 16. Further, the valuation of the physically verified goods was conducted based on available market information at the relevant time. This valuation revealed that the actual value of the goods was significantly higher than what was declared by the taxpayer. Consequently, the proportional tax derived from the declared value was much lower than the actual tax liability, which reinforces the inference of tax evasion. 17. It is also submitted that the RTP wilfully misdeclared the description and quantity of the goods in the tax invoice with the intent to reduce its tax liability. This misdeclaration is a deliberate violation of tax laws, clearly reflecting the taxpayer s mala fide intent. Such actions directly impact the integrity of the tax system and the accurate collection of revenue. 18. Additionally, the manner in which the RTP maintains its stock inventory after such outward supplies further raises serious questions. There appears to be a lack of consistency and transparency in the inventory records, which casts doubt on the taxpayer s claim of complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any substantive reason to challenge the appellate order. 22. Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court finds the detention of goods and the vehicle under Section 129 of the WBGST Act to be lawful. The petitioner s claim of procedural violations, including an unsigned MOV-01 form and errors in other documentation, was noted. However, this Court holds that these irregularities did not render the detention and subsequent proceedings invalid, as the core findings of the case remained unaffected. 23. The Court observed that the discrepancies between the declared description of goods and the physical verification report were significant. While the petitioner argued that the differences were minor trade variations, this Court concluded that the mismatch, coupled with a substantial gap between the declared and verified valuation, indicated a deliberate misrepresentation. Such discrepancies undermined the accuracy of the petitioner s declarations, which are crucial for determining tax liability, justifying the imposition of penalties under the GST framework. 24. The petitioner s failure to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
