Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Search and Seizure of a godown cannot lead to penalty

Bimal jain
Search and seizure of godown not enough for penalty under Section 129 of GST Act, rules court. The Allahabad High Court ruled that the search and seizure of a godown cannot lead to penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In the case involving a trading company, the court quashed the penalty and appellate orders, stating that the proceedings initiated by the tax authorities were unjustified. The court referenced a previous decision supporting this view and directed the authorities to refund the tax and penalty amounts paid by the company. The ruling emphasizes that mere search and seizure do not warrant penalty under the specified GST provisions. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S. GOPI CHAND BATRA TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS - 2024 (6) TMI 1073 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTquashed the Penalty Order and Appellate Order, holding that search and seizure of godown cannot result in penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”).

Facts:

M/s. Gopi Chand Batra Traders (“the Petitioner”) conducted the business of transportation of goods or stored goods while they were in transit. The businesspremises of the Petitioner were searched by the Proper Officer (“the Respondent”). Consequently, the proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the UPGST Act”) were initiated and a Penalty Order dated March 21, 2018 (“the Impugned Order”) was passed by the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid Impugned Order. However, an adverse Order dated August 31, 2018 (“the Impugned Order”) was passed by the Appellate Authority appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act.

Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Orders, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Issue:

Whether the Search and Seizure of a godown lead to penalty?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/S. GOPI CHAND BATRA TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS - 2024 (6) TMI 1073 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTheld as under:

Our Comments:

Section 129 of the CGST Act talks about Detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit”. As per Section 129(3) of the CGST Act,the proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1).

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles