TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty "CGST/UPGST"). In these appeals orders impugned have been passed as given below and as in all these appeals facts of the case are similar and question for determination is also identical, therefore, all are being disposed off by this common order. Particulars of the appeals are as follows: i) Appeal no. Apl/158/AGR/2026 in which impugned order dated- 12.09.2025 has been passed by Additional Commissioner Gr. II, appeal, state tax, Judicial Division - Etawah u/s 130 read with section 122 of CGST/UPGST, Act, vide which order of Adjudicating officer dated- 29.04.2025 has been set aside and amount of penalty imposed therein also has been quashed. ii) Appeal no. Apl/159/AGR/2026 in which impugned order dated- 18.10.2025 has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on respondent on 13.05.2026, reply dated 14.05.2025 was filed by Sh. Abhishek on behalf of respondent but in support of reply no relevant document was submitted and therefore appellant reached to the conclusion that unaccounted bricks and coal were stored by appellant with the intention to evade tax followed by order dated 16.05.2025 u/s 130 vide which Rs. 7,57,866/- penalty and Rs.75,562/- of fine in total amount Rs. 8,33,428/- were imposed upon respondent. 3. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by appellant, respondent/ taxpayer filed appeal u/s 107 of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 before first appellate authority, which was allowed. Order impugned and consequential amount of tax and penalty has been set aside. 4. Facts in brief in appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by appellant. A show cause notice was served on respondent on 10.06.202, reply dated 24.06.2025 was filed by Advocate Vivek Swaroop Aggarwal on behalf of respondent, but in support of reply no relevant document was submitted and therefore appellant reached to the conclusion that unaccounted bricks were stored by appellant with the intention to evade tax followed by order dated 26.06.2025 u/s 130 vide which Rs. 15,17,820/- penalty and fine were imposed upon respondent. 7. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by appellant, Respondent/ Taxpayer filed appeal u/s 107 of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 before first appellate authority, which was allowed. Order impugned and consequential amount of tax and penalty has been set aside. 8. Facts in brie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ike in the present matters, goods were found unaccounted and instead thereof department should launch proceedings u/s 73/74 of CGST/UPGST, act, all the four appeals have been directed by the revenue only to the extent of amount of fine imposed by adjudicating officer. 11. We have heard the learned authorized representative of appellant and perused the records of appeals uploaded on the GSTAT Portal, the common question for determination before us may be formulated as under- Whether an appeal may be filed against order of fine only where amount of penalty in lieu of confiscation of goods has been set aside by first appellate authority? FINDINGS WITH REASONS 12. As quoted by First Appellate authority in its order, in case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices had been supplied by such person and the provisions of section 73 or 74 shall mutates mutandis apply for determination of the said tax. Thus, by bare perusal of the section 35(1) and 35(6) conjointly makes it clear that proper officer is empowered to determine the taxes payable and while determine the said tax he is bound to determine the same in-accordance with the provisions section 73 and 74 of CGST act/ UPGST act. 15. Apart from above, in case of V. K electricals vs Additional commissioner Gr-II and another writ tax no. 957/2024 date of decision 23.08.2024, Allahabad High court has held that in case of excess stock found at the time of survey proceeding u/s 73/74 of CGST/UPGST, Act should be initiated and in place or in addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act, but they have only stated that as question of imposing fine by first appellate authority has left open therefore, appellants have requested to this tribunal that amount of fine imposed by adjudicating officer be maintained. 18. We are unable to understand that how question of imposing the amount of fine by adjudicating officer is said to be left open where learned first appellate authority has quashed and set aside the order-in-original passed by learned A.O by holding that launching of proceedings u/s 130 of CGST/UPGST, Act, was not backed by law. In second appeal before Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, commissioner of State Tax department is required to direct his subordinate officer to file the appeal by going through t....