Case Details: KVN FMCG Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2026) 42 Centax 318 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Shekhar B. Saraf & Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.
- S/Shri Pranjal Krishna, Aman Prakash and Ankit Mishra, for the Petitioner.
- C.S.C., A.S.G.I., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was subjected to a search at its premises. Pursuant to the search, the department alleged excess stock and record-keeping lapses. The amount was recovered through DRC-03 during the search. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued under section 130 of the CGST Act, read with section 122, proposing confiscation and levy of penalty. A confiscation order under section 130(1)(i) was passed, and DRC-07 was uploaded reflecting the demand. The assessee filed a writ challenging the jurisdiction of the confiscation action. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the law stood settled that action under section 130 of the CGST Act and the Uttar Pradesh GST Act could not be initiated without prior determination of tax under sections 73 or 74. It was observed that the SCN issued under section 130 read with section 122 was without such a determination; therefore, the initiation lacked jurisdiction. The SCN and the resultant confiscation order were consequently quashed. Liberty was granted to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law under the relevant provisions. The refund claim was also left open to be pursued in accordance with the law.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Additional Commissioner v. Dayal Product — [2025] 178 taxmann.com 288 (SC) = 2025 102 G.S.T.L. 193 (SC) — Referred [Para 3]
- Additional Commissioner v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar — (2026) 38 Centax 27 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Additional Commissioner v. Shree Om Steels — (2026) 38 Centax 286 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Dayal Product v. Additional Commissioner — (2025) 28 Centax 144 (All.) = 2025 (98) G.S.T.L. 351 (All.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Hcl Infotech Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax — (2024) 23 Centax 71 (All.) = 2024 (90) G.S.T.L. 233 (All.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Maa Mahamaya Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. — (2023) 6 Centax 62 (All.) = 2023 (73) G.S.T.L. 612 (All.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Metenere Ltd. v. Union of India — [2020] 122 taxmann.com 36 (Allahabad) — Referred [Para 3]
- Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra — (2006) 12 SCC 33 — Referred [Para 6]
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks — (1998) 8 SCC 1 — Referred [Para 5]
