Shamhu Saran Agarwal and Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 & Others
Facts :
The petitioner challenged penalty order dated 20.12.2020 and appellate order dated 17.09.2021 arising from detention of goods in transit.
The goods were detained solely on the allegation of undervaluation despite accompanying invoice, e-way bill, and proper documents.
The appellate authority affirmed the penalty on the same ground of undervaluation.
The petitioner relied on departmental circular stating that goods should not be detained merely on valuation disputes.
Court Decision:
The Court held that undervaluation is not a valid ground for detention of goods under Section 129 of the Act.
Where all documents are proper and there is no discrepancy, detention cannot be justified on valuation issues.
Issues of undervaluation must be examined through proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act and not through detention proceedings.
Penalty imposed under Section 129 on mere suspicion of undervaluation was held unsustainable and set aside.
The impugned orders were quashed and consequential relief including refund was directed.
Cases Referred:
- Hindustan Coca Cola Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant State Tax Officer
- N.V.K. Mohammed Sulthan Rawther’s case
- J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs Commercial Taxes Officer
Other Case Law
State of Karnataka v. M/s Tallam Apparels
Disallowance of Input Tax Credit on allegation of non-genuine transactions and non-payment of tax by selling dealer under VAT (Sections involved: Section 70(1), Section 39(1), and relevant provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003)
Facts :The assessee, a registered dealer dealing in garments, claimed input tax ...
Read MoreBiharilal Chhaterpal vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Seizure of goods and penalty for absence of e-way bill in inter-State movement – Sections 129 and 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20(xv) of the IGST Act, 2017 and Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Facts (Background):The petitioner’s goods (barbed wire) being transported from...
Read MoreArmour Security (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.
Whether issuance of summons under Section 70 CGST Act amounts to “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) and bars parallel action by another authority.
Facts :The petitioner company received a show cause notice under Section 73 CGST...
Read More