Facts of the Case
• Petitioners include A & T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and its directors
challenging an order imposing GST penalty and imposition of tax demand.
• The petitioner company, engaged in security services, held GST Registration
No. 07AAECA1356L1ZO.
• A show‑cause notice was issued in 2019 seeking cancellation of GST
registration due to alleged non‑filing of returns.
• Despite filing returns and paying Rs. 2,01,20,299/‑, its registration was
cancelled on 29th November 2019.
• The Appellate Commissioner restored the GST registration conditioned on
filing overdue returns and tax liabilities.
• In 2024, a new show cause notice was issued alleging fraudulent availment of
Input Tax Credit (“ITC”), leading to penalty proceedings.
Issue Involved
• Whether the adjudicating authority failed to consider payments already made
and whether the penalty and tax demand order dated 31st January 2025 and
appellate order dated 16th May 2025 were sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
• Payments totaling over Rs. 2.01 crores were made prior to issuance of the
2024 show‑cause notice, which were ignored by the authorities.
• The impugned orders failed to consider this substantial deposit, affecting
merits of penalty and demand.
Respondent’s Arguments
• Respondents conceded that the prior payments may not have been considered in
the order.
• The penalty proceedings under Section 122 and other relevant provisions were
pursued according to law.
Court’s Findings / Order
• Court observed that authorities ought to have considered the prior payments
while adjudicating.
• The order dated 16th May 2025 was not examined on merits with full regard to
evidence of payment.
• Directs that the petitioner may approach the newly constituted GST Appellate
Tribunal without any pre‑deposit, considering prior payments.
• Appeals to be filed by 25th December 2025 and shall be heard on merits.
Important Clarification
• Pre‑deposits under GST are often required before admission of appeals;
however, where substantive payments can be shown prior to notices, rigid pre‑deposit
may be waived.
• The Court emphasised authority’s duty to consider substantial documentary
proof before levying penalties.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75418112025CW169062025_175814.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment