Confiscation for alleged excess stock under GST was held unsustainable where sections 73 and 74 were the proper route.

Proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act were found unsustainable where the dispute concerned alleged excess stock, because the controversy was already covered by the ruling in Vijay Trading Company as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the respondents could not displace that legal position, so the confiscation and penalty orders could not be sustained. The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund of the deposited amount with interest at 4% per annum.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under section 130 read with section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were sustainable when the dispute related to alleged excess stock and, in the circumstances, proceedings under sections 73 or 74 ought to have been taken.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the confiscation and penalty orders on the ground that the alleged discrepancy in stock could not be proceeded against under section 130 read with section 122. The Court found that the controversy was covered by the earlier decision in Vijay Trading Company, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the respondents could not dislodge that position. In that legal setting, the impugned orders were not capable of being sustained.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 were held unsustainable, and the impugned orders were quashed. The petitioner was held entitled to refund of the deposited amount with interest at 4% per annum.

---