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

No Demand can be raised for excess stock during search under Section 130 of the CGST Act

Bimal jain
Section 130 confiscation can't rest on excess stock alone; tax liability and penalties require assessment under Sections 73 and 74 The court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act cannot rest solely on discovery of excess stock during a survey; such findings must lead to adjudicatory proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 to determine tax liability and penalties. Section 130's confiscation and penal provisions require statutory ingredients-notably an intent to evade tax-and are not a substitute for the assessment framework in Sections 73/74. Finding clauses (ii) and (iv) inapplicable absent evidence of intent, the court quashed the impugned orders and reinforced that tax determination and penalty imposition must follow the specific procedural safeguards of the adjudicatory provisions. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s J.T. Steel Traders Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others - 2025 (8) TMI 238 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated solely on the basis of finding excess stock during survey; instead, proceedings under sections 73 or 74 should be adopted.

Facts:

J.T. Steel Traders ('the Petitioner') is a registered company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of steel coils and other steel items. On August 8, 2019, the Respondent No. 3 conducted a survey at the Petitioner’s business premises, assessing stock on the basis of eye measurement and alleging excess stock.

The Petitioner contended that actual weighment was not done and that proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act were not maintainable in such circumstances; instead, sections 73 or 74 ought to have been invoked.

The Respondent contended that the impugned orders were valid and defended the initiation of proceedings under section 130.

Aggrieved by the orders dated January 9, 2020 (Deputy Commissioner) and May 31, 2022 (Additional Commissioner), the Petitioner approached the Court by way of writ petition.

Issue:

Whether proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act can be initiated solely on the basis of excess stock found during a survey?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court inM/s J.T. Steel Traders Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others - 2025 (8) TMI 238 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:

Our Comments:

This decision reiterates the consistent judicial stance, affirmed by this court in M/s Vijay Trading Company Versus Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another - 2024 (8) TMI 1039 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT that Section 130 of the GST Act is not a substitute for the adjudicatory framework under Sections 73 and 74. It was clarified that confiscation provisions under Section 130 are penal in nature and cannot be invoked merely for excess stock without establishing statutory ingredients, particularly “intent to evade tax.” This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguard that tax determination and penalty imposition must be undertaken strictly under the provisions meant for adjudication, thereby preventing the misuse of confiscatory provisions.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 73 of the CGST Act

“73. Determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24 not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts.-

(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.

(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

(3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.

(4) The service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for such tax periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice.”

Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017

“74. Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any willful- misstatement or suppression of facts.-

(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice.

(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least six months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

(3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.

(4) The service of statement under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be service of notice under sub-section (1) of section 73, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon in the said statement, except the ground of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, for periods other than those covered under subsection (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice.”

Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017

“130. Confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty.-

(1) Where any person-

(i) supplies or receives any goods in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax; or

(ii) does not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax under this Act; or

(iii) supplies any goods liable to tax under this Act without having applied for registration; or

(iv) contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax; or

(v) uses any conveyance as a means of transport for carriage of goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the conveyance, then, all such goods or conveyances shall be liable to confiscation and the person shall be liable to penalty under section 122…”

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])

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