K. ANIL JEWELLERS Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 7/1/2020 passed by the State Taxes Officer Enforcement (Central) Jammu ( STO' for short) and order dtd. 31/8/2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, Appeals-I, Jammu ('the appellate authority"). The petitioner is a firm, namely M/S K Anil Jewelers with GSTIN No. 01AHFPB6215Q1ZJ dealing in the jewellery business. Factual matrix of the case

(2.) State Taxes Officer, Enforcement (Central) Jammu intercepted a vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02BK-1734 carrying the gold ornaments of the petitioner worth Rs.77,96,650.10 under Sec. 68 (3) of the J&K Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act of 2017' for short) read with Sec. 68(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act' for short) on 3/1/2020 at 1.30 at Civil Airport Road, Jammu. The said officer on verification of the documents found that the gold ornaments were accompanied by delivery note which as per the respondents, was not a valid document for movement of goods. Accordingly, the officer detained the said vehicle along with the goods loaded therein and issued order of detention under Sec. 129 (1) of the Act of 2017 and CGST Act read with Sec. 68 (3) of the Act of 2017 in Form GST Mov-06 and the same was served on the petitioner-owner of the firm who caused his appearance along with his counsel for release of goods on 3/1/2020. Subsequently, a notice was issued in GST Mov-07 to show cause as to why tax and penalty be not levied on the said goods in terms of Sec. 129 (1) of the GST Act, 2017. In response to the said notice, the petitioner expressed his consent to pay applicable tax and penalty whichever is applicable stating that the goods were meant for sale on approval basis for which delivery challan was issued by the supplier and the goods were accompanied by the letter from the consignor wherein it was written that the goods are on approval basis. However, the copy of the same was misplaced by the courier agency.

(3.) The STO has recorded a finding in the impugned order that when the goods were intercepted, the person in charge of the goods could produce only a delivery note which was not a valid document for movement of goods as per the provisions of the Act of 2017. The STO has also recorded that the said delivery note was found to be untrue in respect of particulars recorded therein. The STO concluded that since the owner of the goods came forward for payment of tax and penalty, as such, provisions under Sec. 129(1)(a) of the Act were invoked. Accordingly, the STO vide order dtd. 7/1/2020 impugned before the appellate authority imposed tax to the tune of Rs.116965.00 under State/UT Tax, Rs.116965.00 under the CGST Act and penalty of similar amount i.e Rs.116965.00+116965=2,33,930/-.