Case Details: Dayal Product vs. Additional Commissioner - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 263 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Aditya Pandey, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
An inspection was conducted at the business premises of the assessee, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act). The assessee responded to the proceedings; however, a demand for tax along with a penalty was imposed. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed. The assessee contended that the survey under Section 67 was conducted without prior notice under Section 130. Further, it was argued that even if the alleged discrepancy in stock was assumed to exist, the proper course of action should have been to initiate proceedings under Section 73 or 74 instead of Section 130, which is applicable in cases involving confiscation.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that it was not in dispute that a survey was conducted, during which an alleged discrepancy in stock was found. The issue was no longer res integra, as the court had previously ruled in multiple cases that when a discrepancy in stock is found against a registered dealer, proceedings must be initiated under Section 73 or 74 instead of Section 130. In view of the same, the impugned orders were quashed.
The post Order Quashed as Proceedings for Stock Discrepancy Should Be Initiated Under Sections 73 or 74 Instead of Section 130 | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
