The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's finding that proceedings under Section 130 are unsustainable when excess or unaccounted goods are found at the registered business premises during a survey.
The GSTAT Agra Bench has dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the setting aside of penalty and fine levied under Section 130(2) read with Section 122 of the CGST/UPGST Act against M/s Crown Glass Industries, Firozabad, where unaccounted raw material worth ₹10,83,502 was found during an SIB inspection. [Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. M/s Crown Glass Industries]
Member (Judicial) Ajeet Singh held that Section 35(6) of the CGST Act expressly empowers the proper officer to determine the tax payable on unaccounted goods and mandates that such determination shall be in accordance with Section 73 or 74 — not through confiscation proceedings under Section 130.
The Tribunal relied on three decisions of the Allahabad High Court — Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels, and V.K. Electricals — all consistently holding that where excess or unaccounted stock is found at business premises during a survey, the proper course is to initiate proceedings under Section 73/74 and not to invoke the harsher confiscation provisions under Section 130.
2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST | GSTAT Agra | APL/95/AGR/2026 | 16.10.2026
