9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the following facts may kindly be considered: 1) My Father (Mr. Bhagvan Tirthani) is a person with the limited turnover, which is below the GST registration exemption limit. 2) It is requested humbly that the unauthorized search was conducted at the residential place of my uncle Mr. Lalit Tirthani which is evident from the records available with the department. 3) The Cash amounting Rs. 10 Lacs was wrongly seized by the department from the premises of my Uncle Mr. Lalit Tirthani. 4) In respect of the balance amount Rs. 37.45 Lacs also, My Father had provided the bifurcation as well as the explanations to the department with supporting documents. 5) Out of Rs. 37.45 Lacs, The amount of Rs. 21 Lacs pertain to Mr. Maneesh Hazari and Rs. 15 lacs, Pertain to Mr. Puranmal and only Rs. 1.45 Lacs pertain to my father and my family. 6) It is humbly requested that in respect of the above mentioned amounts, My Father has already submitted the relevant documents before the respective authorities. 7) It is requested that My Father doesn't purchase and sale the cigarettes. The different hawkers and representatives of the various companies visit my Father's shop at parao as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other Mr. Anil Kumar Tirthani (GSTN/ User ID of Applicant:- 082400001173AR1) bearing Acknowledgement number AD081024016254K dated 21/10/2024. B. INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICANT ON QUESTION RAISED (IN BRIEF) 1) It is requested that My Father has been dealing in the trading of the grocery items. The GST department conducted the unauthorized search in the premises of my uncle Mr. Lalit Tirthani as on 22/11/22. The cash amounting Rs. 10 Lacs was wrongly and illegally seized by the Department, from the premises of my uncle Mr. Lalit Tirthani. 2) The Authorities have not considered the facts and circumstances. My Father Mr. Bhagvan Tirthani had provided the explanations about the amount seized. But the GST authorities have not considered the facts and the affidavits and other supporting documents made available to them. 3) My Father is a person with the limited turnover, which is below the GST registration exemption limit. 4) It is requested humbly that the unauthorized search was conducted at the residential place of my uncle Mr. Lalit Tirthani which is evident from the records available with the department. 5) The Cash amounting Rs. 10 Lacs was wrongly seized by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in respect of which applications and affidavits were submitted time to time to concerning departments but still no cash is released. Therefore it is requested humbly to quash the penalty imposed in respect of the cash seized of others. It is further requested that the penalty imposed in respect of the cigarettes pertaining to the other agents may kindly be dropped. It is further requested that all the penalties imposed may be quashed as the search proceedings are invalid from the route level. 14) It is humbly requested that the 233000 nos. of cigarettes valued at Rs. 18,67,690/- were wrongly confiscated under the provisions of section 130 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 read with rule 139 of the CGST Rules read with rule 139 of the Rajasthan GST rules, 2017 because the cigarettes didn't belong to my father and any member of my family. 15) It is humbly requested that the Indian Currency of Rs. 47,45,000-/were wrongly confiscated under the provision of section 130(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 read with rule 139 of the CGST rules read with rule 139 of the Rajasthan GST rules, 2017. Therefore confiscated currency which belong to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Department? Q4. Whether the cash seized can be confiscated, whether the cash fall in the category of the Goods as per the GST act. Q5. Whether the goods pertaining to other person can be seized and confiscated Q6. Whether the penalty can be imposed and demand may be raised in the hands of the other person; other than assessee? Q7. Whether the cash pertaining to other person, for which the explanation has already been provided by the assessee and supporting documents like affidavits and other explanations by the owner of the cash seized are already on record of the adjudicating authority and then too the cash is not released, whether it is correct to seize the cash and confiscate the same as goods? Q8. Whether the goods pertaining to the other person kept at the place of Assessee, be deemed to be of the assessee. Q9. Whether the cash can be seized from the home of the Assessee as well as the home of his relatives (Brother)? Q10. Whether the cash seized from two different premises can be clubbed and assessed in hands of Assessee? Q11. Whether the affidavits and requests can be ignored by the Department and confiscation of the goods and cash pertaining to the other per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation in respect of which the option was selected. 5. We are therefore of the view that the applicant has not raised any questions which are found to be covered under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act. We are satisfied that the applicant has been provided reasonable opportunity to counter the aforesaid observations. Therefore, we do not find any reason to accept the instant application made by the applicant for pronouncement of ruling. The application is, therefore, rejected on this ground alone. 6. Further, the taxpayer in his application has submitted that the matter has already been adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-J, Ajmer vide Order In Original No. 14/GCM/GST/DIV-J/2024-25/AC dated 11.06.2024. We observed that in terms of first proviso of sub section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act "the authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act". Here, found that as the matter has already been decided by Assistant Commissioner, CGST division-J, Ajmer vide Order in Original No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
