The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow set aside deletion of confiscation penalties on a brick kiln, holding that intent need not be proved under every clause of Section 130.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow has held that the clauses of Section 130(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are distinct, and an authority cannot require proof of intent to evade tax uniformly across all of them when deciding confiscation [Vishal Singh v. Jay Jay Bricks, 2026-juristway.com-3409-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST].
The Bench of Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial), and Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical) heard the Revenue’s appeal. During a search of a brick kiln in Hardoi in April 2025, officers counted 5,66,500 bricks, and the manager could not produce stock registers, saying the accountant was on leave. A penalty and fine aggregating ₹2,67,096 were imposed under Section 130. The First Appellate Authority deleted them for want of proof of intent to evade tax.
Section 130(1)(ii) applies where a person does not account for goods on which tax is payable, while Section 130(1)(iv) covers contraventions made with intent to evade tax. The trader argued that a stock variation must be dealt with under Section 35(6), and that intent must be proved before confiscation.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority had conflated these clauses with a sweeping view that intent must be proved in every case. Its order was also internally contradictory: it noted the firm’s failure to maintain day‑to‑day records, yet deleted the liability without verifying any ledgers.
The Tribunal found the trader’s reliance on Allahabad High Court decisions misplaced, as officers there had not recorded a complete absence of books. Each charged clause had to be measured against verified evidence.
The appellate order was set aside and the matter remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits.
2026-juristway.com-3409-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST
