Case Details: Raj Steel Versus State of U.P. (2025) 31 Centax 119 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Sanyukta Singh & Chhaya Gautam for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the confiscation order issued by the jurisdictional authority under section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act GST Act and the CGST Act, pursuant to detection of excess stock during inspection. It was submitted that the issue was directly governed by the judgment of the same Court in Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (2024) 21 Centax 358 (All.), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Additional Commissioner Grade 2 v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar.
Relying on the said decisions, it was contended that where excess stock is discovered, the appropriate legal course is to initiate proceedings under section 73 or section 74 of the UPGST Act, depending on the presence or absence of intent to evade tax, and not under section 130 which presupposes such intent. The matter was accordingly placed before the Allahabad High Court.
High Court Held
The Allahabad High Court held that the legal position enunciated in Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar (supra) was squarely applicable, and that proceedings under section 130 of the UPGST Act and CGST Act could not be sustained solely on the basis of excess stock. The Court observed that in such cases, the statutory remedy lies under section 73 or section 74, which govern recovery of tax not paid or short paid, and not under the confiscatory provisions of section 130. Consequently, the confiscation order passed by the jurisdictional authority was quashed.
List of Cases Cited
- Additional Commissioner, Grade – 2 (APPEAL) v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar — [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 5879 of 2025, dated 17-4-2025] — Referred [Para 3]
- Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 — (2024) 21 Centax 358 (All.) — Referred [Para 3]
