Vineet Kumar vs. State Of Punjab And Other
Facts
The petitioner, Vineet Kumar, challenged a notice in FORM GST MOV-7 and an order of demand of tax and penalty in FORM GST MOV-9, both issued by the respondent-State of Punjab and others. The dispute arose from the seizure of tobacco. The respondent-department, after market inquiry, assessed the taxable value of the seized tobacco at Rs. 3,78,756/-, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,12,104/-, leading to a total liability of Rs. 4,92,383/-. The petitioner contended that based on submitted invoices, the tax liability at the time of seizure was Rs. 2,34,825/-. The goods had been in the department's custody since January 3, 2023.
Held
The Court directed that out of the assessed tax liability of Rs. 3,78,756/-, the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 2,34,825/-, which aligns with the tax amount calculated based on the petitioner's invoices. For the remaining amount of the tax liability, the petitioner is to furnish a bank guarantee to the respondent-department. Upon compliance, the respondents are to release the seized goods and the conveyance (bearing registration No. HR62A1774) to the petitioner within seven days. The Court also noted that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy of filing an appeal against the order dated January 18, 2023, in FORM GST MOV-9, if advised. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided; rather, it provided a procedural resolution pending a final appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the taxable value of the seized tobacco, as assessed by the respondent-department through market inquiry, is legally sustainable when the petitioner submitted invoices. (Mixed question of law and fact, potentially relating to Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning determination of tax liability and penalty). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the tax liability should be based on the invoices submitted, amounting to Rs. 2,34,825/-, and that the department's subsequent calculation based on market inquiry is not binding. Relied on the invoices submitted at the time of seizure. Revenue/State: Stated that the calculation of the cost of seized tobacco was based on market inquiry because the petitioner's declared cost was on the lower side and the petitioner did not produce all the relevant record, despite submitting invoices.
Sections Cited
FORM GST MOV-7, FORM GST MOV-9
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-
1977
-20
23 (O&M)
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1977-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.02.2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vineet Kumar Jakhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anu Pal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** Ritu Bahri, J. (oral) Petitioner is seeking quashing of the notice dated 11.01.2023 in FORM GST MOV-7 (Annexure P-5) and order of demand of tax and penalty dated 18.01.2023 in FORM GST MOV-9 (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that in the order dated 18.01.2023 in FORM GST MOV-9 (Annexure P-8), calculation of the costs of seized tobacco has been made from making an enquiry from the market as the cost given by the petitioner was on the lower side and he did not produce the record, though invoices were submitted. A perusal of the order dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) shows that after making an enquiry, taxable value of the seized tobacco was assessed as Rs.3,78,756/- and penalty of Rs.2,12,104/- was also imposed thereon. Accordingly, the total lia
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.