Allahabad High Court: While challenging the orders passed in appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’) to confiscate stock of the petitioner and levy penalty, two tax writ petitions were filed before a single-judge bench comprising Shekhar B. Saraf, J. wherein the issue to be answered was whether mere presence of additional stock would result in confiscation and subsequent penalty, the impugned order were set aside and quashed.
The first writ petition challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 25-09-2019 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 05-04-2022. These two orders were related to confiscation under Section 130 and levy of penalty under Section 122 of the Act respectively.
The second writ petition challenged the order dated 03-12-2022 passed by the Assessing Officer and the order dated 03-08-2022 passed by the First Appellate Authority. These orders were passed under Section 74 of the Act for liability arising out of additional stock that was present with the petitioner.
Counsel on behalf of the petitioner relied on Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v State of U.P.1, in which it was held that the confiscation of stock cannot be done only based on eye estimation.
While upholding the confiscation and penalty, the Appellate Authority held that the authorities had not weighed the stock and had only confiscated the same based on eye estimation done by the junior authorities. It was also stated that the authorities did not mention the weight of the stock on the stock sheet even though a measuring scale was available and that the huge stock of steel rods could not have been weighed and counted in such a short span of 10 hours.
In the present matter, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders while allowing both the writ petitions. The Court expressed that when the Appellate Authority had come to the finding that the quantification of stock had not been done in a correct manner and there was no reason for upholding the penalty and confiscation. It was also stated that the entire procedure followed by the authorities indicated a careless approach, that the burden of proof for confiscating goods is on the department, and that the same cannot be done merely on estimates when a physical verification could have been carried out. The Court also mentioned that the finding of excess stock was without any basis in law and was illegal, which is why the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act could not stand, and if any amount had been deposited by the petitioner to the authorities, the same should be returned. The Court added that the burden of proof for imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods is on the Department and the same cannot be done on estimates when the Department could have carried out a physical verification based on counting and weighing of the goods. In light of the same, the entire finding regarding the excess stock, that is based on estimate, was liable to be rejected outrightly. Hence, both the petitions were allowed, and the Court directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner with the authorities, should be returned to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date of decision.
[Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 1081, Order dated 03-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Aloke Kumar
For Respondent — Advocate Rishi Kumar, Chief Standing Counsel
