GROUNDS OF WRIT-The Petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the First Respondent, has filed a Writ Petition. The Petitioner argues that during the survey conducted at the premises, the Special Investigation Branch issued the impugned order under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, without conducting any physical measurement. The Petitioner contends that the appropriate course of action should have been to pass orders under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for discrepancies in physical stock. An appeal was filed against the order, but it was dismissed. To support the claims, the Petitioner has cited various court orders on similar matters.
ORDER-The Court has set aside the impugned orders issued by the Appellate Authority and the other Respondent. It ruled that the matter is no longer res integra, as similar issues have been addressed in previous cases. The Court reiterated that if discrepancies in stock are discovered during a survey against a registered dealer, the appropriate course of action is to initiate proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act, rather than under Section 130.
GST Case law-Dayal Product Versus Additional Commissioner
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 254 (ALLAHABAD)
Authors for the blog-Bhogavalli Mallikarjuna Gupta & Siddharth Surana
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
