Case Law Details
Elica Sales And 2 Others Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In the case of Elica Sales and others vs. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition challenging a GST demand of ₹37.01 lakh under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. The petitioners, registered dealers, faced a seizure order for goods valued at ₹31.52 lakh, which were found to be missing essential documents like tax invoices and e-way bills during a physical verification on June 10, 2022. Despite the petitioners’ appeal against the seizure order, the appellate authority upheld the demand, citing the absence of requisite documents. The High Court confirmed that the petitioners had failed to provide any supporting documentation or argument to contest the demand. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court’s decision and dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the requirement for proper documentation under GST regulations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Shri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State – respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 0192/2022 of 2022-23 under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act; whereby, the appeal of the petitioners has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are registered dealers. In the normal course of the business, on 07.06.2022, petitioner no. 1 issued four invoices against the different firms, petitioner no. 2 issued two invoices in the name of Pritam Enterprises, Maharashtra for Rs. 10,85,481/- and petitioner no. 3 issued two invoices in the name of Abdul Razzak, Maharashtra for Rs. 46,992.80. He further submits that all the goods through one transporter and were loaded in Vehicle No. RJ 11 GC 0830 for delivery, which were detailed on 10.06.2022 and it was found that 29 bilities were present along with the invoices, however, on physical verification, 242 items were found, but no tax invoices, bility, e-way bill, etc. were accompanying the goods and therefore, a notice under section 129(1) of the UPGST Act was issued and thereafter, seizure order was passed estimating the total value of goods to be Rs. 31,52,386 and demanded a total amount of Rs. 37,01,316/- for release of the goods. The petitioners preferred an appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26.07.2022.
Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the goods in question were detailed and on physical verification, the relevant documents were not accompanying with the goods. Even upto the appellate stage, no material has been brought on record and therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the goods were accompanying without proper documents as required under the GST Act and the Rules framed thereunder. When the goods were detailed, even before issuance of notice or at any stage, the required documents could not be produced. Even before this Court, neither any pleading, nor any material has been brought on record to show that the goods in question were accompanying with the relevant documents.
In absence of which pleading or argument, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order.
The writ petition fails and is hereby, dismissed.
Author Bio
