Union of India & Ors. vs. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari & Anr. Etc.
Court Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
The Court noted that the High Court had quashed the show cause notices seeking recovery of ₹3731 crores from the respondent, holding that:
- The basic jurisdictional requirements were not attracted for invoking Section 122(1A) and Section 137 of the CGST Act.
- No principle of vicarious liability could be read into Sections 122 and 137.
- The respondent was merely an employee and could not be fastened with the liability alleged against the company.
The Supreme Court held that it saw no good reason to interfere with the common impugned orders passed by the High Court.
However, the Court clarified that the question of law regarding the interpretation of Sections 122(1A) and 137 of the CGST Act was kept open.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Referred by the Court
- Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs. Union of India & Ors., WPL Nos. 30198/2023, 30199/2023, 30200/2023 & 30241/2023 (Bombay High Court, judgment dated 28 March 2024)
Other Case Law
Christie's India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding provision of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, on the grounds of violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)...
Read MoreThe State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and
Binding nature of law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India on all Courts, Tribunals, and authorities functioning under a High Court's superintendence — and the requirement of judicial discipline to prevent
Background:Para 1–2, 3.1–3.14: The Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Plann...
Read MoreAndaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise
Whether the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation and solely relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority while passing an excise duty demand order constitutes a serious violation of the principles
BackgroundThe assessee, a manufacturer of ply-woods and related products, sold a...
Read More