SANGEETHA JEWELLERS Vs. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)-1
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioners implore for writ of mandamus declaring the order dtd. 4/2/2020 passed by 1 respondent confiscating 69 Kgs of silver ornaments worth Rs.28,00,000.00 and directing the petitioners to pay tax of Rs.84,000.00 (Central Tax and State Tax), penalty of Rs.84,000.00 and fine of Rs.26,32,000.00 in lieu of confiscation, as without authorization as contemplated under Sec. 67 of the Central Goods and Service Act, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Act"), arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the confiscation proceedings.
(2.)The petitioners' case succinctly is thus:
(a) 1 petitioner is the Proprietrix of M/s. Sangeetha Jewellers, Madhugiri Town, Karnataka State, doing business in silver ornaments and a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 since May, 2018, having GST Registration No. 29GZIPS5843AIZZ. The 2 petitioner is her husband and 3 petitioner is the brother-in-law of 1 petitioner.
(b) As the business of 1 petitioner was not up to the mark, they decided to shift their business from Madhugiri to Pavagada Town in Karnataka. On 15/1/2020, at about 06.30 A.M. when the petitioners along with one Smt. J. Devi, the grand mother of 2 petitioner, were proceeding in their vehicle Creta bearing No. KA 06Z 1813 along with accounts and stock of 69 Kgs of silver ornaments to the newly established business premises at Pavagada, which was taken on lease on 1/12/2019, on the way the 2 respondent intercepted their vehicle at Y.B. Halli Check Post and seized the silver ornaments and vehicle under the cover of panchanama, on the ground that there were no supporting documents. Thereafter, the 2 respondent handed over the seized ornaments to the 4 respondent. Hence, the petitioners approached the 4 respondent, who in turn directed them to approach 1 respondent. Accordingly, the 1 petitioner approached the 1 respondent and produced all the business records for verification to show the justification of the transaction and thus, accounted for the stock. However, the 1 respondent did not consider the explanation of 1 petitioner and the books of accounts produced by her but blindly followed the Panchanama recorded by 2 respondent. The 1 respondent issued a notice of confiscation in Form GST MOU-10, dtd. 21/1/2020, which was served on 2 petitioner on 25/1/2020. Against which the 1 petitioner filed a detailed explanation dtd. 28/1/2020 by enclosing all the relevant documents stating that the seized stock of 69 Kgs of silver ornaments were purchased from the registered GST dealers covered by proper invoice and GST tax and the same ornaments were being shifted to the new business premises at Pavagada. The goods were thus accounted for and suffered tax and hence, the proposed levy of tax and penalty was not justified.
(c) However, without considering the aforesaid explanation the 1 respondent treated the seized stock as unaccounted for and rejected the contention of the petitioners and passed the impugned order.
(d) The order of the 1 respondent is highly arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, besides 1 respondent has no authorization as contemplated under Sec. 67 of the CGST Act.
(3.)Hence, the writ petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.