Page 201 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : DEEPESH GUPTA 119
5. Personal Hearing in the case has been conducted on 27-3-2019. Shri
Pankaj Malik, Chartered Accountant appeared for personal hearing on behalf of
the appellant and explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds of ap-
peal as mentioned in the appeal memorandum and requested to decide the case.
He further requested to provide the details of verification of quantity conducted
by the adjudicating authority.
6. I have carefully gone through the case records and detail submis-
sions made in the appeal memorandum as well at the time of personal hearing.
7. On perusal of the facts available on record, I find that the appellant’s
contention that the marbles/granite slabs were in irregular seizes and out of the-
se irregular slabs, the rectangular slabs are taken after cutting which normally
comes much lower than the quantity actually available in irregular slabs. The bill
is prepared and charged for actual recoverable marble slabs. This is normal prac-
tice in the trade. This plea of the appellant is not acceptable as I find that the dif-
ference between quantity mentioned in the invoices and quantity found in Physi-
cal Verification is huge and as abnormal difference was found when compared to
the invoices available at the time of interception of conveyance with the quantity
mentioned in the Invoice No. 40, dated 3-10-2018 Marble Slab was shown 5955
Sq. Ft., whereas 7010 Sq. Ft. of excess Marble Slab was found on physical verifica-
tion like wise Granite Slab were shown 450 Sq. Ft. in Invoice No. 40, dated 3-10-
2018 whereas, 2609 Sq. Ft. of Excess Granite Slab were found on physical verifica-
tion and also Granite Patti Box were shown 150 Box in Invoice No. 35, dated 3-
10-2018 whereas, 59 Boxes of Granite Patti were found in excess. In any case after
cutting the irregular shape of Marble Slabs in a rectangular shape wastage cannot
be generated more than 100%. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly
taken into account the quantity found excess in Physical verification while pass-
ing the impugned order.
8. The appellant has submitted in the grounds of appeal that the meas-
urement slip has not been provided to them and requested to call for the meas-
urement slip and decide the case on the basis of the slip. The adjudicating au-
thority was asked to produce the measurement slip. He furnished that the physi-
cal verification of quantity of goods was carried out in presence of the appellant
and Shri Rajendra Meena, the person in-charge of the vehicle, as evident from
FORM MOV-04, dated 4-10-2018. Form-04 is prescribed form for the physical veri-
fication report under the statute. I find that the appellant as well as Shri Rajendra
Meena, the owner/person in-charge of the vehicle have placed their signature on
this document after due perusal and copy of the report was also handed over to
Shri Rajendra Meena. Also, the quantity found excess was duly accepted in the
Form MOV-04 by the appellant and the person in charge of the conveyance.
Therefore, appellant’s contention on this ground is not acceptable.
9. In view of the above discussion and findings I hereby reject the ap-
peal filled by the appellant.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  201