<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>No Benefit, No Liability: Bombay HC Draws the Line on Employee Penalties under GST - A Critical Analysis of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. Union of India [Bombay HC]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16071</link>
    <description>Penal liability under the CGST Act for company-level GST defaults is examined in relation to employees and authorised representatives, with emphasis on the limits of Section 122(1A) and Section 137. Employee liability cannot be fastened merely because a person is associated with compliance or business operations; the statutory conditions of being a taxable person, conducting the transaction at the person&#039;s instance, and retaining the benefit of the alleged fraudulent act are treated as essential prerequisites for penalty. The discussion also distinguishes civil tax adjudication under Section 74 from criminal prosecution under Section 137 and states that GST law does not recognise automatic vicarious liability of employees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:17:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:17:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>No Benefit, No Liability: Bombay HC Draws the Line on Employee Penalties under GST - A Critical Analysis of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. Union of India [Bombay HC]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16071</link>
      <description>Penal liability under the CGST Act for company-level GST defaults is examined in relation to employees and authorised representatives, with emphasis on the limits of Section 122(1A) and Section 137. Employee liability cannot be fastened merely because a person is associated with compliance or business operations; the statutory conditions of being a taxable person, conducting the transaction at the person&#039;s instance, and retaining the benefit of the alleged fraudulent act are treated as essential prerequisites for penalty. The discussion also distinguishes civil tax adjudication under Section 74 from criminal prosecution under Section 137 and states that GST law does not recognise automatic vicarious liability of employees.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Goods and Services Tax - GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:17:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>