2020 (1) TMI 1282 - Commissioner - GST

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

Shri Deepesh Gupta Versus The Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), CGST Commissionerate, Alwar

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 ... Confiscation of goods alongwith conveyance - appellants contention that the marbles/granite slabs were in irregular seizes and out of these irregular slabs, the rectangular slabs are taken after, cutting which normally comes much lower than the quantity actually available in irregular slabs - HELD THAT:- This plea of the appellant is not acceptable as I find that the difference between quantity mentioned in the invoices and quantity found in Physical Verification is huge and as abnormal difference was found when compared to the invoices available at the time of interception of conveyance with the quantity mentioned in the invoice No.40 dated 03.10,2018 Marble Slab was shown 5955 Sq Ft, whereas 7010 Sq Ft of excess Marble Slab was found on physical verification like wise Granite Slab were shown 450 Sq Ft in invoice No.40 dated 03.10.2018 whereas, 2609 Sq Ft of Excess Granite Stab were found on physical verification and also Granite Patti Box were shown 150 Box in invoice No. 35 dated 03.10.2018 whereas, 59 Boxes of Granite Patti were found in excess. In any case after cutting the irregular shape of Marble Slabs in a rectangular shape wastage cannot be generated more than 100%. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly taken into account the quantity found excess in Physical verification while passing the impugned order. The appellant as well as Shri Rajendra Meena, the owner/person in-charge of the vehicle have placed their signature on this document after due perusal and copy of the report was also handed over to Shri Rajendra Meena. Also, the quantity found excess was duly accepted in the Form MOV-04 by the appellant and the person in charge of the conveyance - Appeal dismissed. 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.