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
Shamhu Saran Agarwal and Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 & Others
Whether goods can be detained and penalty imposed under Section 129 GST Act on the ground of undervaluation.
Facts :The petitioner challenged penalty order dated 20.12.2020 and appellate or...
Read MoreNoordeen Enterprises & MNS Enterprises vs. Additional Director General, DGGI & Additional Commissioner of CGST, South Commissionerate
Validity of letters issued by DGGI to customers of the petitioner-taxpayers, directing those customers to remit amounts payable to the petitioners directly to the GST authorities — issued at a stage when no order-in-original determining tax liability ha
BACKGROUNDThe petitioners are suppliers of goods. During the course of investiga...
Read MoreVinay Hiroo Thadani v. Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise & Ors.
Challenge under Sections 74 and 93(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 – recovery of tax dues of deceased person from legal heir. Issue of applicability of Section 93(1) CGST Act and principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings
Facts:The petitioner was issued a show cause notice seeking recovery of alleged ...
Read More