TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Excess stock discovery requires proceedings under Sections 73-74 UPGST Act, not Section 130 with Rule 122</h1> <h3>S/S Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another</h3> The Allahabad HC set aside an assessment order involving confiscation of goods based on alleged excess stock found during a survey conducted on ... Validity of assessment order - excess stock - confiscation of goods on the basis of eye measurement - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the survey was made on 24.08.2018 in which alleged excess stock was found then the proceedings were initiated - This Court on various occasions has held that if the excess stock was found then the proceedings under Sections 73 & 74 of the UPGST Act will come into play and not proceedings under Section 130 read with Rule 122 of the Act. This Court in M/s Shree Om Steels Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and Another [2024 (7) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] held that even if excess stock is found, the proceedings under section 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated. The impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside - Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to order dated 24.03.2022 passed in GST Appeal No.28/2020, Assessment Year 2018-19.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in trading of Cement, Mauram, and Saria, challenged the order based on a survey conducted on 24.08.2018, where excess stock was found without proper procedure. The petitioner argued that proceedings should have followed Sections 73 & 74 of the UPGST Act instead of Section 130. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment (Writ Tax No. 1007 of 2022) to support the claim. The respondent, however, supported the impugned order. The Court noted the survey findings and emphasized that proceedings under Sections 73 & 74 should apply in cases of excess stock, not Section 130. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the need for proper assessment and penalty determination under the relevant sections of the Act. The Court specifically mentioned that Section 130 proceedings cannot be initiated even if excess stock is found, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures for tax assessment and penalty imposition. The Court set aside the impugned order, stating it cannot sustain under the law, and allowed the writ petition challenging the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
