2024 (1) TMI 709 - HC - GST

GST Penalty Challenge: Taxpayer Seeks Relief from Rs. 11.5L Assessment Order Under CGST/SGST Act Provisions

HC examined challenge to assessment order and penalty under CGST/SGST Act. Petitioner contested Rs. 11,57,682.60 penalty imposed by Assessing Authority, ... Petitioner’s bank guarantees are being threatened to be invoked for non-payment of remaining amount - Levy of penalty u/s 129 of CGST Act - petitioner has already deposited 25% of the penalty assessed by the Assessing Officer at the time of approaching the 1st appellate authority - HELD THAT:- Let there be an interim order and the respondents are directed not to invoke the bank guarantee of the petitioner with the 5th respondent till disposal of this writ petition subject to the petitioner depositing further 10% of the assessed penalty within a period of two weeks from today. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order, appellate order, and demand notices u/s 129(1) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017; Constitutionality of penalty imposed by Assessing Authority.Summary:Challenge to Assessment Order and Appellate Order:The petitioner, an assessee u/s CGST/SGST Act, 2017, challenged the assessment order, appellate order, and demand notices related to penalty proceedings u/s 129(1) of the Act. The Assessing Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,57,682.60 on the petitioner, which was upheld in the appeal before the 4th respondent. Although there is provision for a 2nd appeal before the GST Tribunal, the absence of such a Tribunal led the petitioner to approach the High Court.Constitutionality of Penalty Imposed:The petitioner had already deposited 25% of the penalty assessed by the Assessing Officer while appealing before the 1st appellate authority. The petitioner's bank guarantees were at risk of being invoked for non-payment of the remaining amount. The petitioner faced difficulty due to the absence of the Tribunal, which prevented them from approaching any other authority except the High Court. In light of these circumstances, an interim order was issued directing the respondents not to invoke the bank guarantee of the petitioner with the 5th respondent until the disposal of the writ petition, provided the petitioner deposited a further 10% of the assessed penalty within two weeks.