Seizure of goods under GST Act upheld; in summary proceedings assessee must prove physical movement and genuineness

HC dismissed the petition and upheld seizure of goods as lawful under the GST Act. The court held that in the original/summary proceeding the onus rests on the assessee to produce cogent material proving actual physical movement and genuineness of transactions; the burden shifts to revenue only in reassessment proceedings. The petitioner failed to demonstrate movement from the stated origin (no truck/toll records or other corroboration) and thus invoices and documents were not shown to be genuine. Seizure for under-valuation with intent to evade tax was justified and no interference was warranted.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the seizure of goods under Section 129(3) of the IGST/CGST Act on grounds of under-valuation and non-genuine documents was justified.
• Whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to prove the actual movement of goods from West Bengal/Assam to Delhi via Kanpur.
• Whether the authorities acted beyond their powers in seizing goods based on under-valuation.
• Whether the petitioner's reliance on precedents from other High Courts and earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court was applicable to the present case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Seizure of Goods under Section 129(3) of IGST/CGST Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 129(3) of the GST Act allows for the detention or seizure of goods in transit if they contravene the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. The petitioner argued that under-valuation is not a valid ground for seizure, citing various judgments, including those from the Chhattisgarh and Kerala High Courts. However, the Court referred to precedents like M/s Radha Fragrance and M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Company, which upheld seizures on grounds of under-valuation when it was deliberate to avoid tax.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the statutory framework requires true and correct valuation of goods on tax invoices. It found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the actual movement of goods from West Bengal/Assam to Delhi, which was crucial to establishing the genuineness of the transaction.

Key Evidence and Findings: The authorities noted discrepancies between the truck driver's statement and the accompanying documents, which suggested that the goods were loaded from Kanpur, not West Bengal/Assam. The petitioner failed to provide truck numbers, toll receipts, or other evidence to substantiate the claimed route of transport.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from previous judgments, asserting that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish the actual movement and valuation of goods. The petitioner's inability to provide evidence justified the seizure under Section 129(3).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued against the legality of the seizure based on under-valuation, while the respondent emphasized the non-genuine nature of the documents and the driver's statement. The Court sided with the respondent, noting the petitioner's failure to rebut the driver's statement or provide supporting evidence.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the seizure was justified due to the petitioner's failure to prove the actual movement of goods and the deliberate under-valuation aimed at evading tax.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court highlighted, "The petitioner has utterly failed to bring on record any cogent material for transporting the goods from West Bengal / Assam to Delhi via Kanpur. Once the petitioner has failed to prove the true/actual movement of the goods, the seizure proceedings cannot be said to be unjustified."

Core Principles Established: The judgment reaffirmed that under-valuation with intent to evade tax justifies seizure under the GST Act. It also emphasized the importance of genuine documentation and the burden of proof on the taxpayer to substantiate claims of goods movement.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the seizures were lawful and the petitioner failed to provide necessary evidence to challenge the findings of the respondent authorities.

---