Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Appellant has abetted and assisted in activities of storing dutiable goods at unregistered premise, without any authority of law and dealing in impugned goods which he knew were liable to confiscation and rendered himself liable to penalty under Section 122(3) and Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Section 29 of the CGST Act — Registration of Godown — The appellant involved in trading and supply of M.S Angle, M.S. Channel, M.S. Shape, M.S. Section, M.S. Beam, M.S. Bar, M.S. Flat etc., falling under the Chapter of 72 of CGST Tariff. A search on 13-9-2018 was carried out by DGGI, Jaipur. The searched premise was their retail shop and mostly cash sales were performed from this place and their wholesale sales were undertaken from their godown. In the GST registration only one place was mentioned and no other additional place of business in the state was mentioned. The appellant informed that they had applied for registration of additional place of business for this godown but they could not produce any documentary evidence in support of such claim. The stock of goods stored at the godown was seized under a reasonable belief that the said goods are being stored at an unregistered premise. The respondent issued a SCN dated 11-3-2019 proposing confiscation of the said goods and penal action under Section 122 and Section 125 of the Act on the company as well as on the Proprietor. The adjudicating authority has ordered to confiscate the seized goods under Section 130(ii) & (iv); imposed a penalty under section 122, 125 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Appeal challenging the order. The appellate authority observed that the appellant intentionally did not declare the additional place of business i.e. godown in their GST Registration and carried out the business activities from the unregistered place. Further, the appellant could not produce any corroborative evidence in support of their claim that they had applied for amendment in registration of additional place of business. The appellants were required to comply the provisions of law and to follow the procedure as prescribed. Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
Join Whats App Group
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Product Demo
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
whatsapp with taxlok SUBSCRIBE OUR MAGAZINE