Facts of the Case
The present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution challenging a communication dated 6 May 2025, whereby tax and
penalty amounting to ₹2,99,23,614/- were computed by the GST Intelligence
authorities.
The case arose from the seizure of a large consignment of
areca nuts (approximately 497.07 tonnes) transported from Assam to Delhi on the
ground of absence of proper documentation. The Directorate General of GST
Intelligence (DGGI) conducted a search and seizure operation on 30 April 2025
and 1 May 2025, and statements of concerned persons were recorded.
Subsequently, the Petitioner voluntarily addressed a letter dated 2 May 2025 requesting release of seized goods and expressing willingness to deposit applicable tax and penalty for disposal of the case. In response, the department issued the impugned communication quantifying the tax and penalty payable for provisional release of goods.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the impugned communication dated 6 May 2025 constituted a valid
adjudication order under the CGST Act, 2017.
- Whether
tax and penalty under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act can be imposed
without issuance of a Show Cause Notice.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to provisional release of seized goods through writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
petitioner contended that although tax calculation was based on invoices,
the imposition of penalty under Sections 130, 122, and 74 of the CGST Act
was legally untenable.
- It
was argued that any demand under Sections 73 and 74 necessarily requires
issuance of a Show Cause Notice, and in absence of such notice, the demand
is invalid.
- The petitioner also sought provisional release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
respondent submitted that the communication dated 6 May 2025 was not an
adjudication order but merely a response to the petitioner’s own request
dated 2 May 2025 seeking quantification of tax and penalty.
- It was further argued that if the petitioner chose not to accept the computation and deposit the amount, the department would proceed in accordance with law by issuing a proper Show Cause Notice.
Court’s Findings / Order
- The
Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily offered to
deposit tax and penalty and sought release of goods, pursuant to which the
department merely computed the amount.
- The
Court clarified that the impugned communication cannot be treated as an
adjudication order but only as a response to the petitioner’s request.
- The
Court noted that the petitioner subsequently changed its position and
declined to deposit the amount.
- The
Court held that proper adjudication requires issuance of a Show Cause
Notice in accordance with law.
- The
prayer for provisional release through writ jurisdiction was declined,
granting liberty to approach the appropriate authority.
- The
GST Department was directed to proceed by issuing a Show Cause Notice as
per law.
- The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Important Clarification by Court
- A quantification
communication issued upon taxpayer’s request does not amount to an
adjudication order.
- Demand
under Sections 73/74 requires due process including issuance of Show Cause
Notice.
- Taxpayer
cannot later challenge computation after voluntarily seeking it, unless
formal adjudication proceedings are initiated.
- Relief of provisional release should ordinarily be sought before statutory authorities, not directly through writ jurisdiction.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS19052025CW67232025_183059.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