Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) Vs S/S Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar (Supreme Court of India)
In, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment concerning confiscation proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the UPGST Act on the basis of alleged excess stock found during survey proceedings. While declining to interfere with the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that dismissal of the SLP would not prevent the authorities from taking recourse to appropriate remedies available in law.
The dispute before the Allahabad High Court arose from survey proceedings conducted on 24.08.2018 at the business premises of a registered dealer engaged in trading cement, mauram, and saria. During the survey conducted under Section 67 of the UPGST Act, the authorities allegedly found excess stock based only on eye measurement and thereafter confiscated the goods. A notice was subsequently issued under Section 130 of the Act read with Rule 32, and an ex parte order dated 23.02.2019 was passed. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order as well as the appellate order dated 24.03.2022 affirming the same.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that even if excess stock had been found, proceedings for tax determination should have been initiated under Sections 73 or 74 of the UPGST Act rather than under Section 130 relating to confiscation. It was also contended that proceedings under Section 130 were impermissible against a registered dealer in light of Section 35(3) of the Act. The petitioner further challenged the stock determination itself, arguing that the authorities had relied merely upon eye estimation during the survey.
