AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(hereinafter referred to as the respondent). 2. Brief Facts of the case:- 2.1 The officers of the Directorate General of GST intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, C-62, Sarojani Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001 (hereinafter referred as "DGGI‖) under the authority of Search Warrant dated 27.06.2019, issued by the competent authority conducted the search at M/s Swastik Udyog, E-17 & 18, SKS Industrial Area, Reengus, DisttSikar (Raj) on 27/28.06.2019 in presence of two independent witnesses, namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar Verma and Sh. Banshidhar and Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma, Supervisor of M/s Swastik Udyog, Jaipur. During the course of search the officers, inter alia, carried out the physical stock verification of finished goods i.e. Ply, and against stock of finished goods, valued for Rs. 96,86,453/- found in the premises in excess of the recorded stock in violation of Section 35 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 56 of CGST Rules, 2017 and seized the same under Section 67(2) of the Act read with Rule 139 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and recorded in Annexure 'A' to the Panchnama dated 27/28.06.2019. Sh.Parveen Goyal, Authorized Signatory of the assessee in his statement dated 19.12.2019 admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir stock as per their books. This contention of the assessee appeared to an after thought and unacceptable. 3. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 20/23.12.2019, was served with the assessee and Sh. Lalit Goyal, Partner, calling upon them to show cause to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-G, Sector-C, Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road,Sikar-332001 as to why:- (i) the excess found goods valued at Rs. 96,86,453.00, as shown in Annexure A to the Notice, seized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act,2017 read with Rule 139 of the CGST Rule, 2017 as detailed in GST INS-02 to Panchnama dated 27/28.06.2019 should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the CGST Act,2017 read with Rule 139 of the CGST Rules,2017, (ii) penalty should not be imposed upon M/s Swastik Udyog, E-17 & 18, SKS Industrial Area, Reengus, Sikar, Rajasthan -332404, in terms of Section 122 (1) (xvi) and (xviii) of the CGST Act,2017 for contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act,2017 and the Rules made there under with an intent to evade payment of CGST/SGST. (iii) penalty should not be imposed upon Shri Lalit Goyal, Partner of M/s SU, under Section 122(3) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so stated that application is being submitted in accordance with Notification No.55/2020- Central Tax dated 27.06.2020 amending Notification No.35/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020 Accordingly, the appellant department filed this appeal on the following grounds:- [A] The adjudicating authority has erred in holding that the unaccounted/ excess goods which were seized were not deliberately kept unaccounted to supply the same clandestinely and without payment of tax. Whereas as per Section 35(1) of the CGST Act,2017, every registered person shall keep and maintain, at his principal place of business, as mentioned in the certificate of registration, a true and correct account of (a) production or manufacture of goods; (b) inward and outward supply of goods or services or both; (c) stock of goods; (d) input tax credit availed; (e) output tax payable and paid; and (f) such other particulars as may be prescribed. Further, as per Rule 56 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 'Every registered person, other than a person paying tax under section 10, shall maintain the accounts of stock in respect of goods received and supplied by him, and such accounts shall contain particulars of the open....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case related to the search at residential premise of Shri Lalit Goyal, wherein the visiting officers found unaccounted Indian currency amounting to Rs. 11,10,000/- for which Smt. Usha Goyal could not produce any plausible reply in respect of said Indian currency in the said premises, and accordingly on a reasonable belief, that the said Indian currency is sale proceed of the goods liable to GST which were removed clandestinely was seized by DGGI officers. This facts also corroborate the version of Sh. Makhan Lal, Accountant that M/s SU purchase 40% of raw material through Bill and remaining 60% in cash through "Kachha System" but the adjudicating authority din not mentioned these facts in the OIO. [D] The adjudicating authority has also erred in holding in para 5.4 that seizure of entire goods treating it as excess/un-accounted stock is unjustified and invalid as in para 5.5 of the OIO the adjudicating authority accepted the facts that record of production of their finished was not found complete/updated at the time of visit of DGGI officers. From the statements of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, Supervisor, it is clear that they do not maintain stock register / daily production records.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 10.01.2020 that after completion of the record and after making inventory, goods was found short. Therefore, instead of order of confiscation of goods valued to Rs. 96,86,453/- found unaccounted the adjudicating authority improperly ordered for release of the same and imposed tax and penalty by treating that goods valued to Rs. 7,96,867/- was short. In other word, it is an admission on the part of noticee that goods valued to Rs. 1,04,83,320/-(goods valued to Rs. 96,86,453/- found unaccounted during the search + goods valued to Rs. 7,96,867/- unaccounted but already cleared clandestinely as admitted by the noticee vide their letter 10.01.2020) were unaccounted at the time of search by DGGI officers. Thus the version of adjudicating authority in para 5.12 is also incurred wherein adjudicating authority held that "I do not found any evidence which has been adduced in the notice to establish and arrive at a logical conclusion that the unaccounted/excess stock was deliberately kept unaccounted to supply the same clandestinely and without payment of tax". It is evident from the above facts that in addition of unaccounted stock of Rs. 96,86,453/- found during search, a stock of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case that the assessee is evading tax by undervaluing their goods as evident from the statements of these persons, hence simply brushing aside this allegation of the department on the basis version of the partner of the assessee is not legal and proper within the purview of law. (L) That the adjudicating authority has grossly erred in finding made in para 5.15 of the impugned order regarding adopting the price of the seized goods on the basis of the invoices issued by the assessee itself whereas the case of the revenue is also on the basis of evidences of undervaluation of the goods collected and accepted in the statements of Shri Makhan Lal Accountant of the firm and Shri Praveen Goyal, Authorised Signatory & brother of the partner who were quite aware of these facts, hence the findings of the adjudicating authority deserves to be set aside being it not legal and proper within the purview of law. 4. The appellant also stated that application is being submitted in accordance with Notification No.55/2020- Central Tax dated 27.06.2020 amending Notification No.35/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020. 5. The respondent vide letter No. APPL/JPR/CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed on 28.06.2019 by stating: That there is no doubt from the facts and records of the case that the notice has maintained the records of production of their finished goods, but at the time of visit the DGGI officers, it was not complete/updated and the verbal request made by the noticee to complete and update the production records was not acceded by the officers of DGGI. That the admission made by Banwari Lal Sharma in his statement dated: 27.06.2019 recorded during search stated that he looks after the supervision of labour, loading of finished goods, unloading of raw material, quality checks of finished goods/raw material and supervision of daily production and quality control of the assessee and the firm does not maintains stock register and prepares daily Production Slips, and the work relating to GST is looked after by their accountant Sh. Makkhan Lal Poonia and Sh. Lalit Goyal Partner of assessee. But DGGI did, not ask any question either from Sh. Lalit Goyal, Partner or from Sh. Makhan Lal Paonia in this regard to endorse the version of Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma. Further, the DGGI also did not record the statement of Sh. Lalit Goyal in this regard so that the pricing patter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingredients required for seizure of goods, the mere fact that the records of the impugned finished goods were not complete/updated as on 27.06.2019, with an intent to evade tax, without any other corroborative evidence, cannot alone be, the sustainable grounds for seizure of these impugned goods. That the seizure was unwarranted, on the preponderance of presumption/probabilities. That to conclude, the provisions of section 67(2) dealing inter alia with seizure of goods that the above provisions authorize the proper officer to seize the goods which are liable to confiscation. It is therefore imperative that the nexus of seizure of goods have been made directly relatable to confiscation. As such, it is equally important to peruse the provisions of Section 130 of the Act and Rule, 139 of the Rules, dealing with confiscation of goods which stipulates that if any person does not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax under this Act with intent to evade payment of tax then, all such goods or conveyance shall be liable to confiscation and the person shall be liable to penalty under Section 122. In this context it is found that the intention of the unaccounted goods is the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed/explained to arrive at the pricing of the goods the show cause notice is entirely based on the assumption and presumption. That to arrive at the correct price of the goods seized, there has to be cogent and conclusive methodology had to be adopted by the officers of the team, and cohesive evidence should have been put forth to establish that the noticee was indulged in under pricing of the goods and that the prices arrived at by team were more reasonable and in accordance to the prevailing market price of the goods. Thus in absence of any commensurate method of pricing, the value worked out is therefore unreasonable and therefore unacceptable. That the 'Ply' values Rs. 96,86,453 seized is not liable to confiscation and deserved to be released. Further the authority has confirmed demand of Rs. 1,43,436/- alongwith interest u/s 50 and penalty under Section 74(1) and 122(3) of the Act. There is no excess unaccounted stock of the goods on the date of search and therefore seizure of goods is invalid. A.1. The assessee is a manufacturer and supplier of Plywood, Veneered Panels and Flush Doors etc. At the time of search, books of accounts and other records were seized by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nection it is submitted that as on the date of search the production entries in books of accounts was made upto the month of April and May ,2019 and that of sale was made upto the date of search. Further the goods found unaccounted during the search was accounted in the form of bills and vouchers but they were merely not formally accounted for in the books of accounts. This fact was communicated to the search team and a request was made to allow to complete the books of accounts on the basis of bill vouchers and other documents found in search so that the position of book stock as on the date of search can be ascertained. It is to be submitted further that the accounts and records was not incomplete for the entire period although the entries related to around one month was pending to be recorded/posted in the books of accounts by the accountant of the assessee. At the time of search also the assessee was having the bills and also having the details of the production during the period which was seized by the search team at the time of search also. If there has been the intention/ practise of the assessee to remove goods clandestinely, then the assessee would have riot even maintaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises of M/s Premier Plylam Marketing Co. VKI Area, Jaipur who is the dealer of the goods manufactured by the assessee. As per panchnama prepared in case of M/s Premier Plylam Marketing Co., copy provided by them it is mentioned that partner of the firm Shri Ashish Gupta could not provide the updated data of stock of goods meant for supply as he stated that he was out of station and could not enter the purchase and sale invoices in their books of accounts/stock register. He also stated that he would update the sale and purchase, stock register and intimate to the department and promised to comply the directive of the department in the matter. The search team on the basis of the statement /assertion ,of the partner of said firm has not seized the goods, though inventory was prepared after counting the physical stock lying at the premises. From the above it can be noted that the Intelligence unit allowed M/s Premier Plylam Marketing Co. to update/complete their books of accounts and submit the stock position as per completed books and did not seize their goods physically counted at the time of search; whereas in the case of assessee the same Intelligence unit has took different....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods 'Plywood' showing details of opening stock, production made and sale made during the period 14-2019 to 27-6-2019. (iii) Ledger account of purchase of raw material and consumption thereof with the Consumption-Production Statement of year 2018-19 and for the period 1-4-19 to 27-6-19, which is based on the standard norms. (iv) Copy of purchase invoices of various items of raw material for the period 1-4-19 to 27-6-19 can be produced for verification. (v) Copy of sale invoices of finished goods for the period 1-4-19 to 276-19 can be produced for verification. (vi) Copy of ledger account of finished goods 'Plywood' and raw material i.e. Face veneer, Core veneer & Timber as per the books seized during search. From the above, the book stock worked out by the assessee as on the date of search i.e. 27-6-19 is fully verifiable. You are requested to verify the above. The assessee will provide full cooperation in verification of above stock. In view of above it is submitted that the stock found during search is not excess/unaccounted stock as alleged. Rather the stock found is slightly short than the book stock which is due to the reason of inaccurate stock takin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble. The department in its appeal has taken a ground that Shri Parveen Goyal, Authorised Signatory of the assessee who is also partner of M/s Tirupati Plywood Industries (TPI) in his voluntary statement dated: 28.06.2019 has accepted the facts disclosed by the manager of TPI and accountant of assessee where it was admitted that the value of goods to 40% for issuing of invoices and receiving of remaining 60% in cash through "kaccha system" in respect of supplies made from factory premise. Since, Shri Praveen Goyal is the key person in the both firms i.e. M/s Swastik Udyog and M/s TPI. It appears that it was their set procedure to evade GST by not maintaining the stock register/ daily production records and cleared the goods clandestinely without payment of GST. These evidences were sufficient for the revenue to achieve reasonable belief that the subject goods were liable to confiscation hence deserve for seizure at that moment, hence the same was effected by the department. The Department in its Appeal has also contended that the adjudicating authority has erred in finding made in para 5.14 of the impugned order regarding goods which was duly adopted by the revenue on the facts di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds from the factory. After loading the goods, he prepares loading details. The sale price and terms & Conditions are finalised by Shri Lalit Goyal. The accountant Shri Makkhan Lal is responsible for accounting work and he enters the invoice in the books of accounts maintained in Tally software. Both these persons narrated these facts in their respective statements recorded at the time of search by the intelligence team. The sale price of the goods and the terms & conditions of sales is finalised by Shri Lalit Goyal who was out of India at the time of search. Therefore, neither the authorised signatory Shri Parveen Goyal nor the accountant Shri Makkhan Lal nor the Supervisor Shri Banwari Lal Sharma are the relevant person to give any statement in respect of sale price/billing price of the goods. Hence no cognizance be given to the statement given by these persons at the time of search in absence of the main person Shri Lalit Goyal who actually looks after the sale part. The responsibility and work entrusted to both the employees i.e. Shri Banwari Lal and Makhan Lal is recorded in their statements itself; this itself proves that they never dealt with the sale price of the goods and n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Parveen Goyal in his voluntary statement dated: 19.12.2019 at the time of appending his signature on the panchnama and admitting the facts of Panchnama dated: 27/28.06.2019 has not agreed with the valuation of the goods seized in the business premise of the Assessee. Hence it cannot be said that Shri Parveen Goyal authorised signatory of the assessee has accepted the facts of Supervisor and Accountant of the assessee which they have stated in their statements. In view of above, the release of goods vide OIO dated: 27.01.2020 by stating that statement of Shri Lalit Goyal who is incharge of the affair of the supply and pricing of the goods were never recorded to find out the pricing pattern of the seized goods is correct. Further the Ld. A.C. has verified the updated books of accounts and considered the position of book stock as on the date of search before passing the OIO. Therefore, the order in review holding that the OIO dated 27-1-2020 is not proper and legal is incorrect. The department in its appeal has further contended that despite of having examined panchnama, GST-INS-02, statement of supervisor and signatory, the adjudicating authority, in the OIO repeatedl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the same could have been corroborated In the Departmental Appeal it has also been contended that the adjudicating authority has also erred in holding in para 5.4. of the OIO that seizure of entire goods treating is as excess/un-accounted stock is unjustified and invalid as in para 5.5 of the OIO the adjudicating authority accepted the facts that record of production of their finished goods was not found complete/updated at the time of visit of DGGI officers. From the statement of' Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, Supervisor, it is clear that they do not maintain stock register/ daily production records. If the DGGI had not conducted the search at the premise of the taxpayer and resumed the documents, the taxpayer could manipulate the accounts in accordance with their mala-fide intention to evade GST by removing the goods clandestinely without paying GST. However, the contention of assessee regarding completion/ updation of their records, tendered vide his letter dated 11.07.2019 i.e. after 14 days of search was afterthought and not acceptable at later stage being made without documentary evidences and legal footings. In this connection it is submitted that the assessee during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as no uncounted excess stock of finished goods as on the date of search as per the completed books. Although the physical stock on the date of search was slightly short in comparison to books. Further at the time of search also the assessee has all the sale invoices for the sale of finished goods on which due GST has already been paid. Therefore, question of any clandestine removal does not arise. Further the Intelligence unit neither during the search has not found any proof that the currency found during search is related to any clandestine removal of goods nor has recorder statement of any person this issue. Hence the intelligence units does not have any basis to consider the seized currency as sale proceed of the goods removed clandestinely. Hence the cash found search at the residential premise of Shri Lalit Goyal the Partner of the assessee is not to be considered as sale proceed of the clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the seizure of the cash is invalid and the same is to be released on this ground itself. Hence the same should not be corroborated with the facts of the statement of Accountant/Supervisor of the assessee. Therefore, the OIO ordering for releasing the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that the finished goods found were unaccounted which was kept with intent to remove clandestinely is incorrect and contrary to above facts. The only lapse was that books of accounts was incomplete for around one month in relation to production entries but the details of the production was found in search. This cannot be viewed as failure to keep, maintain or retain the books of accounts. Had the search team would have provided opportunity to update/complete books of accounts, there would not have been any seizure of goods as the stock found during search is as per books of accounts. The assessee at the time of search was having all the purchase files containing all the relevant purchase invoices of the Raw Material, sales file containing all the sales Invoices of the finished goods and all the GST return filed during the period from 01.04.2019 to 27.06.2019. The law nowhere provides that all the entries should be posted in the books of accounts on the same day. Mere delay in posting the entries related to production in the books of accounts when all the relevant bill/vouchers and production details* were available at the time of search, cannot be said to be failure to keep, mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation. In view of above the allegation that the penalty should be imposed for not retaining, maintaining books of accounts and other documents as per the CGST Act, and for transporting, supplying and storing the goods which are liable to confiscation is incorrect and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the OIO dated: 27.01.2020 dropping the penalty is correct and the same be sustained. Rule 61 of the CGST Rules, provides the form and manner of the monthly return to be filed by the registered person. As per this rule monthly return in form GSTR-3B which was brought by the legislature in lieu of GSTR-3 which is being filed regularly by the registered person. The details required as per the format of form GSTR-3B is being submitted regularly by the assessee. There is no requirement of form to submit the details of monthly production. The details of outward made by the assessee is regularly submitted in GSTR-3B. Thus, there is no violation of the provisions of Rule 61 of the CGST Rules. No penalty is imposable on the partner Shri Lalit Goyal of the assessee firm under section 122(3) C. l. The Department in its Departmental Appeal has contended that Shri Lalit Goyal, P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unts and other relevant documents as per the provisions of the CGST Act and the stock records are duly maintained in the tally system where in the production entries were updated upto the month of April and May 19 and the sale entries were posted upto the date of search as evident from submission made above. Hence the charge of omission and commission on the Partner of the assessee Shri Lalit Goyal is also not sustainable. Further Shri Lalit Goyal, Partner of the assessee who is charge de affair of the assessee had never been interrogated by the Intelligence team which has conducted the search despite the availability of ample time from the date of visit it till issuance of SCN. Hence in view of above the adjudicating authority is correct in stating in its OIO dated: 27.01.2020 that proposing penalty upon Sh. Lalit Goyal partner of assessee under section 122(3) of the Act, without according him opportunity to put forth his view pleading as to how he was personally involved and responsible in the clandestine removal of the goods, is wholly unjustifiable and against the spirit of law, and accordingly Sh. Lalit Goyal is liable for any penal action under section 122(3) of the COST Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om appellant/department side, none appeared for personal hearing and in this regard a letter dated 23.03.2021 has been received from Asstt Commissioner, CGST Division-Sikar therein it has been stated that due to technical reasons, this office was not able to attend the virtual hearing hosted on 22.03.2021 though link via Webex. It is further requested that the submission of this office may please be considered as submitted in appeal memo. 8. I have gone through the facts of the case as inscribed in the departmental appeal, the oral iteration offered by the department/ appellant in their appeal memo. Accordingly, I proceeded to decide the case envisioning the facts submitted by the appellant department as well as respondent. On going through the appeal memo, submission of cross objections and relevant records of the case I find that the following issues to be decided in the instant case:- 1) Whether excess stock were found during the physical stocks verification against entries made in stock register and whether seized excess stocks are liable to confiscations in terms of Section 130 of CGST Act and Rules 139 of CGSGT Rules, 2017 or not ? 2) Whether penalty is imposable upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny tax, penalty and charges payable in respect of such goods or conveyance. (4) No order for confiscation of goods or conveyance or for imposition of penalty shall be issued without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. (5) Where any goods or conveyance are confiscated under this Act, the title of such goods or conveyance shall thereupon vest in the Government. SECTION 122. Penalty for certain offences. - (1) Where a taxable person who - (i)...... (ii).... (iii)..... (xvi) fails to keep, maintain or retain books of account and other documents in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (xviii) supplies, transports or stores any goods which he has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act; (2)...... (3) Any person who -- (a) aids or abets any of the offences specified in clauses (i) to (xxi) of sub-section (1); (b) acquires possession of, or in any way concerns himself in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, supplying, or purchasing or in any other manner deals with any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or the rules made thereunde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e inspection or search or, as the case may be, seizure of goods, documents, books or things liable to confiscation. (2) Where any goods, documents, books or things are liable for seizure under sub-section (2) of section 67, the proper officer or an authorised officer shall make an order of seizure in FORM GST INS-02*. RULE 56. Maintenance of accounts by registered persons. - (1) Every registered person shall keep and maintain, in addition to the particulars mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 35, a true and correct account of the goods or services imported or exported or of supplies attracting payment of tax on reverse charge along with the relevant documents, including invoices, bills of supply, delivery challans, credit notes, debit notes, receipt vouchers, payment vouchers and refund vouchers. (2) Every registered person, other than a person paying tax under section 10, shall maintain the accounts of stock in respect of goods received and supplied by him, and such accounts shall contain particulars of the opening balance, receipt, supply, goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off or disposed of by way of gift or free sample and the balance of stock including raw ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be inferred that the above said proceedings were conducted in transparent and fair manner. Further, I find that during the proceedings the physical stock was also verified and it was found excess against the entries of stock register. The whole proceedings were done in the presence of two independent witnesses and in presence of the employees of the respondent/assessee. Further, the statements of the Supervisor, Accountant and Authorized Signatory of the Firms were recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 before the proper officer. The Supervisor of the Firm has stated in his voluntary statement that they did not maintain stock register and also did not prepare daily production slip and they used to note down the details in Kachhi Parchi. The same facts was admitted by Authorized Signatory of the Firms and brother of Partner of the Firms, in his statement. From the above facts, it is emerged that during the search proceedings the excess stock were found against the entry of stock register. Therefore, findings of the adjudicating authority that the unaccounted / excess stocks were not deliberately kept unaccounted is not tenable. Further, the respondent/assessee contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not recorded to find out the pricing pattern of the seized goods and raised the question on valuation of the goods the same contention has also been taken by the respondent. In this regard, I observed that the value was arrived on the basis of statement of the Accountant of the Firms who inter alia stated that as per his knowledge, the ratio of the value shown in the bill and amount charged in cash over and above the value declared in the Bill 40:60, receiving 40% through bill of the actual price while receiving 60% in cash through Kachha system the same systems was adopted for purchase as well as sale of the goods. In view of this fact I find that the value arrived by investigating authority by multiplying the sale price mentioned in the sale invoice by 2.5 times is justified and proper. Further, in view of the pattern of Kachha system, I find that the investigating authority has rightly arrived the value of the said excess goods as the sale invoice price can not be relied as it was undervalued upto the 60% of the actual price of the sale. Moreover in view of the above facts I am the opinion that the recording of statement of the Partner Sh.Lalit Goyal would have not served the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee that the said cash could be verified with cash book and remaining amount was saving of household, as the huge cash kept in the residential premises is unwarranted looking into the threat aspect as well as restriction of possession of cash by the Govt. In view of the foregoing discussions and findings, I find that the adjudicating authority has erred by holding that the seized goods is not liable for confiscation. Contrary to this view, I find that the respondent/ assessee has contravened the provisions of Section 35 of CGST Act read with Rule 56 of CGST Rules,2017. Therefore, the seized goods is liable to confiscation in terms of Section 130 of CGST Act and Rules made thereunder. However, since the adjudicating authority has already been ordered to release the said seized goods in terms of Order in Original No.01/GST/Demand/2020 dated 27.01.2020 therefore, I have no option but to impose fine in lieu of the confiscation of the said released goods in terms of Section 130(2) of CGST Act,2017. Point No.(2)- In respect of the issue mentioned at point No.2 the respondent submitted that since no excess stock found hence no penalty is leviable under Section 122(1) (xvi....