"PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 122"
This section is used, or I must say misused, in most of the Notices!
The department is trying to levy a penalty under this section in most cases, but the High Court's views are in favour of the Assessee.
Bookmark/Save this Post
1. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs Union of India - Bombay High Court
(2024) 17 CENTAX 18
Petitioner, who was a mere employee of MLIPL, which was although a group company of Maersk, could not fall within purview of section 122(1A), as the petitioner could not be a 'taxable' or a 'registered person' within meaning and purview of CGST Act so as to retain such benefits as provision ordains; hence, there was no question of revenue invoking section 122(1-A) against the petitioner; thus, revenue invoking said provision against petitioner was an act wholly without jurisdiction, so as to issue show cause notice demanding tax and penalty from petitioner was also without jurisdiction.
2. Shree Om Steels vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 21 CENTAX 19
Where in the survey carried out under section 67 of UPGST Act goods found excess, notice under section 130 read with section 122 of UPGST Act issued for confiscating goods, tax and penalty levied, even if excess stock found proceedings under section 130 of GST Act could not be initiated, tax demand can be quantified and raised only in the manner prescribed in section 73 or section 74 of CGST Act, impugned orders were to be set aside.
3. Faruk Rathore vs Dy. Commissioner, CGST, Bikaner - Rajasthan High Court
(2024) 18 CENTAX 375
Where goods of assessee were detained, since it was not a case that E-way bill was not available, instead same had merely expired and it could not be said that there existed an intention to evade tax or any fraudulent intention on part of petitioner, penalty should not have been imposed under Section 129, and a penalty of Rs. 10 thousand was to be imposed under Section 122.
4. Girish and Company vs State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 15 CENTAX 291
Where the assessee faced seizure for non-downloading of the E-way Bill due to confusion arising from frequent changes in notifications, the High Court held that imposition of the maximum penalty, without allegations in show cause notice or impugned order, was unjustified, particularly when the lesser penalty is prescribed under Section 122 of CGST Act.
5. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals), GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore Circuit Office, Madurai
(2024) 19 CENTAX 324
Where the assessee transitioned input tax credit while the penalty was confirmed for wrongful ITC availment, since fraud or misstatement was not proved by revenue and credit was reversed immediately after show cause notice was issued, imposition of penalty under section 74 were inappropriate and, thus, a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 122 was to be imposed on assessee instead of higher penalty initially levied.