Case Details: Amit Manilal Haria vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 119 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
-
Abhishek A. Rastogi, Pooja M. Rastogi, Meenal Songire & Aarya More for the Petitioner.
-
Ram Ochani & Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners filed a writ challenging penalties proposed and imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act. A search was conducted on the assessee and related firms, summons were issued, and statements were recorded and retracted. The show cause notice (SCN) alleged wrongful availment and transmission of ineligible ITC. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on each petitioner and issued DRC-07. The petitioners contended that they were not taxable persons and had neither retained any benefit from the transactions nor caused them. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 122(1) applied only to taxable persons and mandated dual conditions, namely that a person must have retained the benefit of transactions under clauses (i), (ii), (vii), or (ix) and that such transactions were conducted at their instance. Clauses (i), (ii), (vii), and (ix) targeted violations by taxable persons. No material or finding indicated that the petitioners were taxable persons or had retained benefits or caused the transactions. Furthermore, Section 122(1A) was inserted with effect from 01-01-2021, and penalties could not be retrospectively applied to acts committed before that date, as Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India barred ex post facto penal liability. Consequently, the SCNs and orders imposing penalties on the petitioners were held unsustainable.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. UOI [2024] 161 taxmann.com 27/105 GST 429/89 GSTL 62 (Bombay) (para 27)followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. UOI [2024] 161 taxmann.com 27/105 GST 429/89 GSTL 62 (Bombay) (para 9)
- UOI v. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari [2025] 171 taxmann.com 36/109 GST 177/96 GSTL 385 (SC) (para 9)
- Bharat Parihar v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 152 taxmann.com 6/98 GST 694/75 GSTL 129 (Bombay) (para 12)
- Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UOI [2025] 174 taxmann.com 638/98 GSTL 419 (Delhi) (para 14).
The post Retrospective Penalty u/s 122(1A) CGST Barred | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
