Amit Manilal Haria & Ors. vs. The Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise & Anr.
Court Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notices and the Order-in-Original dated 1 February 2025 insofar as they imposed penalties of ₹133,60,60,889/- each on the petitioners under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act.
The Court held:
- Section 122(1A) applies to a “taxable person”:
On a conjoint reading of Section 122(1) and 122(1A), the Court held that sub-section (1A) necessarily applies to a taxable person as defined under Section 2(107) of the CGST Act. The petitioners, being employees of M/s. Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., were not taxable persons in their individual capacity and hence could not be proceeded against under Section 122(1A). - Jurisdictional requirement not satisfied:
Section 122(1A) requires that the person must (i) retain the benefit of the transaction covered under specified clauses of Section 122(1), and (ii) the transaction must be conducted at his instance. The impugned order did not record any finding that the petitioners retained any benefit of the alleged transactions. Therefore, the jurisdictional ingredients were not satisfied. - No vicarious liability under Section 122(1A):
The Court held that there is no principle of vicarious liability incorporated in Section 122 or Section 137 of the CGST Act so as to fasten such penalty on employees merely because they held managerial positions. Retrospective application impermissible:
Section 122(1A) came into force with effect from 1 January 2021. The show cause notice covered the period from July 2017 onwards. The Court held that the penal provision could not be applied retrospectively for the period prior to 1 January 2021, in view of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the impugned order was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction insofar as it related to the petitioners.Cases Referred by the Court
1. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs. Union of India, 2024 (89) G.S.T.L. 62 (Bom.)
2. Union of India vs. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari, (2025) 27 Centax 14 (S.C.)
3. Bharat Parihar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 3742 of 2023, decided on 30/06/2023.
4. Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 (5) TMI 922 – Delhi High Court
Other Case Law
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Validity of multiple show cause notices for same tax period – Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 2...
Read MoreMahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing & Oil Industries v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Challenge to constitutional validity of restriction on input tax set-off based on actual payment of tax by selling dealer (Section involved: Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002)
Facts The petitioner, a registered dealer under the MVAT Act, claimed input...
Read MoreNL Tile Art Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial
Validity of revision proceedings based on audit report – Section 108 of the CGST Act, 2017 / KGST Act, 2017 read with Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/KGST Act.
Facts:Audit reports dated 06.12.2022 and 22.02.2023 were issued in respect of th...
Read More