Group M Media India Private Limited vs Union Of India And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 18808 P&H

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB

CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M)

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB

CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M)

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139492-DB

CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M)

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