Punjab-Haryana High Court
Group M Media India Private Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB
CWP-28974-2024
2024 (O&M)
Page 1 of 4
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-28974-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.10.2024
.10.2024
GROUP M MEDIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Advocate with
Mr Nikhil Goyal, Advocate
Mr.
Ms. Anishka Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner assails the show cause notice issued to him under section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') read with section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
2. Learned senior counsel submits that earlier the respondents had issued notice under section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, and after the reply was filed, the proceedings were dropped by the respondents vide order dated 28.02.2023.
28.02.2023. With the same regard, tthe he office of the DGGI had also issued notices to the petitioner to which the petitioner had submitted its reply.
3. Learned senior counsel submits that while the DGGI was seized with the matter, the notice under section 74 of the Act could not have been issued d to the petitioner. Further, he also argues that the show cause notice issued under section 74 of the Act does not reflect and point out as to what manner of concealment of tax has been done by the 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-10-2024 06:28:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 4 petitioner. It is his submission that as per section 74 ooff the Act, the show cause notice should point out as to what are the incriminating allegations against the petitioner and as to how the petitioner has attempted a fraud to evade tax, any willful mis mis-statement statement to evade tax, or suppression of facts to evade tax.
4. He relies on judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India and 81, which has been followed by the others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 81, Allahabad High Court in HCL Infotech Ltd. vs. Commiss Commissioner, ioner, 1644.. In support of his Commercial Tax and another, 2024 (9) TMI 1644 submission he has taken us to para Nos.22, submissions, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the concerned judgment judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
5. We have carefully considered his submissions and find that the contention raised by the petitioner are wholly misconceived. Issuance contentions of notice under section 73 of the Act and dropping the same would not prevent the authorities from independently initiating proceedings under section 74 of the Act. The said proposition has also been accepted by the Allahabad High Court in HCL Infotech Ltd Ltd. (supra).
6. So far as the question raised by the petitioner with regard to parallel proceedings being conducted by the DGGI and the Haryana State GST Intelligence Unit as well as Assista Assistant Commissioner, CGST is concerned, we find that while the Assistant Commissioner, CGST issued a letter dated 10.03.2023 to the petitioner requesting him to deposit the tax liability, the office of the DGGI only issued notice seeking certain queries. However, However, none of the authorities, either of the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-10-2024 06:28:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 4 CGST or the DGGI have proceeded or initiated proceedings under section 74 of the Act.
7. We find that the notice under section 74 of the Act has only been issued to the petitioner by the Haryana State Tax (SGST), vid videe its impugned notice dated 03.08.2024. Along with summary of show cause notice, the grounds have been detailed in the first para which which, for the reference of the present case, case reflects as under:
"1. On review of GSTR 9 and GSTR 2A, it has been noticed that the taxpayer has availed excess ITC to the tune of Rs.8,84,57,976/-
Rs.8,84,57,976/ under head IGST and Rs.23,44,08,735/ Rs.23,44,08,735/-
in CGST and Rs.23,43,95,663/-
Rs.23,43,95,663/ under SGST in GSTR GSTR-3B on being compared to I'I'C appearing in GSTR GSTR- 2A. Same is evident from Table 8D of GSTR-9.
GSTR 9. Si Since, the vendor has not declared his tax liability in GSTR GSTR-1 due to which ITC is not appearing in GSTR-2A, GSTR 2A, therefore, this creates an impression that the vendor of taxpayer has not deposited tax liability in government treasury. Due to this reason, the recipient i.e. taxpayer has not fulfilled condition of section recipient 16(2) (c) of CGST/HGST Act, 2017. You are hereby Show Caused as to why said amount of tax/ITC along with applicable interest under section 50(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 and penalty under section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 should not be recovered."
recovered."
8. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the allegations against the petitioner are that while he is stated of having availed excess to the tune of Rs.8,84,57,976/- under head IGST IGST; Rs.23,44,08,735/- in CGST and Rs.23,43,95,663/-
Rs.23,43,95,663/ under SGST,, however, same is not appearing in GSTR-- 2A which reflects that the taxpayer has not deposited the tax 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-10-2024 06:28:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 4 of 4 liability in the Government treasury and has availed the same wrongfully. Resultantly, the notice has bbeen issued to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner, however, instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, directly approached this Court assailing the said show cause notice in the writ petition. The proceedings under section 74 of the Act are comprehensively comprehensively and completely laid down under the provisions of the Act, Act and this Court would not in any manner cause hindrance in the disposal of the proceedings.
10. The writ petition cannot be entertained for the said purposes, more so when prima facie the show causee notice specifically reflects the allegations which the tax authorities feel to reflect of a fraud having been committed by the petitioner.. The case and facts of HCL Infotech Ltd. (supra) are found to be different from the present case and it cannot be said that the notice does not reflect the allegations.
11. Writ Petition is found to be wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 24,, 2024 Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-10-2024 06:28:51 :::