2025 (5) TMI 227 - HC - GST

Company directors can appeal GST penalty orders under Section 107 CGST Act as 'any person'

Gurudas Mallik Thakur and Dinesh Kumar Raghav Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.

Delhi HC held that company directors can appeal GST penalty orders under Section 107 CGST Act, which permits 'any person' to file appeals. The court found ... Taxable persons - Liability of Petitioners, as directors of the company for short payment of GST, inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) availed, and non-filing of GST returns - HELD THAT:- Section 107 of the CGST Act starts with the expression ‘any person’. Thus, the filing of appeal is permissible by any person and not merely by a taxable person - The statements which have been recorded by the directors i.e., the Petitioners show that each of them is trying to shrug off their responsibility. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires closer scrutiny on facts by the Appellate Authority as to who was responsible for running the company and who was taking decisions including relating to generation of invoices, making payments, etc. However, the same is beyond the scope of a writ petition. The purpose of Section 122 (1A) of the CGST Act is clearly to make persons who may be responsible for having created bogus invoices and having utilised ITC without the receipt of goods and services and for distributing ITC in contravention of Section 20 of the CGST Act. It can be seen that the manner in which companies function is that there is a management who would be taking the decisions on behalf of taxable persons. These companies being inanimate, the responsibility has, by the wisdom of the legislature, been fixed under Section 122 (1A) of the CGST Act upon any person who retains the benefits of a transaction. The question as to which person has retained the benefit and who has not would again be a factual issue. Directors of a company and others who manage such companies owe a responsibility to ensure that companies do not engage in such fraudulent activity for availment of ITC without actual supply of goods, distribution of ITC to persons who have raised fake invoices and non-filing of GST returns - The impugned order clearly reveals that in various places the Petitioners as also the other two persons i.e. Mr. Arindam Chaudhary and Mr. Varun Khanna are clearly not owning up the responsibility as to who took the decisions in respect of the availment of ITC and non-filing of the GST returns. This Court is of the view that the impugned order can be clearly appealed against by the Petitioners, who were directors of the company. Insofar as the order passed by the Supreme Court in Shantanu Sanjay [2025 (1) TMI 1249 - SC ORDER] is concerned, the Supreme Court clearly observes that the Petitioner therein was also only an employee and he could not have been fastened with the liability of Rs.3731 Crores. Moreover, the questions of law were left open by the Supreme Court in the said case - In the present case, the penalties have been imposed on various directors of the company who were having an active role as per impugned order. The correct remedy for the Petitioners would be to approach the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Let the Department communicate to the Petitioners within two weeks the mechanism in which they can avail of their appellate remedies - Upon receiving the intimation, the Petitioners shall file the appeal within 30 days - The appeal, if so filed as directed above, shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. Conclusion - The impugned order can be clearly appealed against by the Petitioners, who were directors of the company. The correct remedy for the Petitioners would be to approach the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. There is a need for factual adjudication by the Appellate Authority to determine the extent of control and benefit derived by the Petitioners. The core legal questions considered by the Court include:1. Whether the Petitioners, as directors of the company, can be held liable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for short payment of GST, inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) availed, and non-filing of GST returns.2. Whether the Petitioners qualify as 'taxable persons' under the CGST Act and, consequently, whether penalties under Sections 122 and 122(1A) of the CGST Act can be imposed on them.3. The scope and applicability of Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, which imposes penalties on 'any person' who retains the benefit of certain transactions involving tax evasion or fraudulent availment of ITC.4. The question of whether the Petitioners have the right to appeal the impugned order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, despite being non-taxable persons.5. The procedural issue regarding the mechanism for non-taxable persons to file appeals against orders imposing penalties under the CGST Act.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Liability of Directors for Short Payment of GST and Inadmissible ITCThe relevant legal framework includes Section 74 of the CGST Act, which deals with recovery of tax not paid or short paid, and Sections 122 and 122(1A), which prescribe penalties for certain offences including fraudulent availment of ITC.The Department's investigation revealed that the company had not filed proper GST returns beyond certain dates and had availed inadmissible ITC amounting to over Rs. 22 crores. The impugned order confirmed demands for short payment of GST exceeding Rs. 40 crores and inadmissible ITC of approximately Rs. 35 lakhs, along with interest and penalties.The Court noted that the Petitioners, as directors, did not accept responsibility for filing GST returns, claiming resignation and shifting control to the promoter and CEO. However, the adjudicating authority held them liable jointly with the company and other key persons, imposing penalties accordingly.The Court emphasized that the factual determination of the role played by the directors, their control over the company's operations, and whether they derived benefits from the transactions is a matter for the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was not the appropriate forum to delve into these factual issues.Issue 2: Whether Petitioners are 'Taxable Persons' and Implications for Penalty LiabilityThe Petitioners contended they were not taxable persons under the CGST Act and therefore could not be held liable for penalties under Sections 122 and 122(1A). They relied on precedents including the Bombay High Court decision in Amit Manilal Haria and the Supreme Court's order in Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari, which distinguished between employees and directors and limited liability to taxable persons.The Department, relying on the Bombay High Court decision in Bharat Parihar, argued that Section 122(1A) uses the term 'any person,' which is broader than 'taxable person' and includes individuals who may not be taxable persons but who retain benefits from transactions involving tax evasion or fraudulent ITC claims.The Court examined the definition of 'person' under Section 2(84) of the CGST Act, which includes individuals, companies, firms, and other entities without limitation. It further distinguished between 'taxable person' and 'any person' used in different provisions, noting that Section 122(1A) explicitly extends penalty liability to any person who retains benefits from specified transactions.The Court held that the Petitioners, as directors, could be liable under Section 122(1A) even if not taxable persons, as the provision aims to capture persons responsible for or benefiting from fraudulent transactions, including bogus invoices and improper ITC claims.Issue 3: Applicability and Purpose of Section 122(1A) of the CGST ActSection 122(1A) penalizes 'any person' who retains benefits from transactions covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii), or (ix) of Section 122(1), which includes issuance of false invoices and wrongful availment or distribution of ITC.The Court observed that companies act through their management and directors, and since companies are juridical persons, Section 122(1A) was enacted to fix liability on individuals who benefit from or instigate such fraudulent transactions.The Court noted that the impugned order indicates the Petitioners and other officers were evasive about their roles, underscoring the need for factual inquiry by the Appellate Authority to determine who exercised control and benefited from such transactions.Issue 4: Right to Appeal the Impugned Order by Non-Taxable PersonsThe Petitioners argued that as non-taxable persons, they face difficulties in filing appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which provides the remedy of appeal against orders passed under the Act.The Court clarified that Section 107 begins with the phrase 'any person,' thereby permitting appeals by any individual, not only taxable persons. This interpretation aligns with the broader definition of 'person' under the CGST Act.The Court directed the Department to communicate to the Petitioners within two weeks the mechanism for filing appeals, and allowed the Petitioners 30 days to file appeals thereafter. The Court further directed that appeals not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and be adjudicated on merits.Issue 5: Procedural Mechanism for Filing Appeals by Non-Taxable PersonsThe Petitioners submitted that the current appellate portal does not allow non-taxable persons to file appeals electronically.The Court mandated the Department to provide a suitable mechanism for such persons to file appeals, failing which the Petitioners may file appeals manually in physical form.Significant Holdings'Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act has been enacted to also make such persons liable under these circumstances.''The Statute makes a clear distinction between the taxable person and any person.''Section 107 of the CGST Act starts with the expression 'any person'. Thus, the filing of appeal is permissible by any person and not merely by a taxable person.''The question as to which person has retained the benefit and who has not would again be a factual issue.''The impugned order can be clearly appealed against by the Petitioners, who were directors of the company.''The correct remedy for the Petitioners would be to approach the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.'The Court affirmed the principle that liability under Sections 122 and 122(1A) of the CGST Act extends beyond taxable persons to any person who retains benefits from fraudulent transactions, including directors actively involved in company management. It recognized the need for factual adjudication by the Appellate Authority to determine the extent of control and benefit derived by the Petitioners. The Court also underscored the right of such persons to appeal, directing the Department to facilitate the appellate process for non-taxable persons.