Appeal under GST Act dismissed for discrepancies in marble & granite conveyance. Tax demand upheld with fines.

The appeal filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against discrepancies found in a conveyance carrying marble and granite slabs was rejected. The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines and penalties due to the significant differences between the quantity mentioned in the invoices and the physical verification results. The irregular sizes of slabs and the estimation basis for quantity verification were not deemed sufficient justification for the discrepancies identified during physical verification.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion).
2. Discrepancies found during the interception of a conveyance carrying marble and granite slabs.
3. Calculation of excess goods and corresponding GST payable.
4. Show-cause notice issued resulting in the confirmation of tax demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of fines and penalties.
5. Grounds of appeal related to irregular sizes of slabs, estimation basis for quantity verification, and lack of measurement slips.
6. Conduct of personal hearing and submission by the appellant.
7. Adjudicating authority's analysis of discrepancies and rejection of appellant's contentions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion) regarding discrepancies found in a conveyance carrying marble and granite slabs. The appellant contested the findings based on irregular sizes of slabs and estimation basis for quantity verification.

2. Upon interception of the conveyance, discrepancies were identified, including excess marble and granite slabs compared to the invoices provided. The value of impugned goods found in excess was calculated, leading to a difference in GST payable as per the invoices and the physical verification.

3. Following a show-cause notice, the adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines and penalties. The appellant raised grounds of appeal related to the irregular sizes of slabs and the lack of measurement slips to support their case.

4. During the personal hearing, the appellant's representative presented arguments regarding the trade practices related to irregular slabs and requested the measurement slips for verification. However, the adjudicating authority examined the case records and rejected the appellant's contentions.

5. The adjudicating authority found the discrepancies to be significant, with a substantial difference between the quantity mentioned in the invoices and the physical verification results. The authority also highlighted the acceptance of excess quantity by the appellant and the person in charge of the conveyance during physical verification.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected based on the findings that the irregular slabs' sizes and the estimation basis for quantity verification did not justify the discrepancies identified during physical verification. The authority upheld the decision to confirm the tax demand and impose penalties, citing the acceptance of excess quantity during verification as a key factor in the judgment.

---