Appeal Dismissed Upholding Confiscation & Fines for GST Evasion

The appeal was filed against an order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-F, Bharatpur, regarding the confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant, involved in trading stones of marbles and granite, faced discrepancies in loaded quantity during interception by CGST officers. Despite objections raised by the appellant, the authority confirmed the demand based on discrepancies in goods quantity, leading to the confiscation of goods and conveyance. The appeal challenging the decision was dismissed, upholding the confiscation and fines imposed due to intentional evasion of GST payment through excess loading of goods.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original passed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-F, Bharatpur.
2. Confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Grounds of appeal challenging the impugned order.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the hearing process.
5. Confirmation of demand of tax, penalty, and fines based on discrepancies in goods quantity.
6. Interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
7. Allegation of intentional evasion of GST payment through excess loading of goods.
8. Decision on the appeal filed by the appellant.

The appeal was filed against an order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-F, Bharatpur, concerning the confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant, involved in trading stones of marbles and granite, had discrepancies in the quantity loaded in a conveyance intercepted by CGST officers. The goods and conveyance were detained, and the appellant claimed ownership and deposited tax, penalty, and charges for release. The adjudicating authority proposed confiscation of goods and conveyance, leading to an appeal by the appellant.

The appellant challenged the impugned order on various grounds, including objections against confiscation, incorrect measurement, lack of intention to evade tax, and the imposition of fines. Despite multiple opportunities for a hearing, the appellant failed to appear, leading to a decision based on available records. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand based on discrepancies in goods quantity between the invoice and physical verification.

The interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 was crucial in this case. The section allows for confiscation of goods and conveyance with the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The appellant contested the measurement discrepancies and the legality of the proceedings under Section 130. However, the authority found the excess loading intentional to evade GST payment, justifying the confiscation and fines imposed.

The decision on the appeal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appellant's arguments. The authority concluded that the excess loading of goods was deliberate to evade GST payment, affirming the confiscation and fines imposed. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings and interpretation of relevant legal provisions.

---