Circular no. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued Circular no. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 regarding Assigning proper officer under section…
Tag: Sec. 122
Supreme Court stays retrospective GST penalty under Section 122(1A) and to examine its applicability to non-taxable persons
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Garg held that Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 would not apply to a non-taxable person, and provisions of Section 122(1A) which came into force from January 1, 2021 could not be applied retrospectively for assessment years 2017 to 2020. The Court granted leave and stayed …
What if there is no limitation in the Statute for taking an action-Can it be taken for an indefinite period
There has been much talk that whether under the provisions of Section 122 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 127 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 142(1) of CGST Rules, 2017, is there any time limit applicable for taking the Action. Lest consider for the sake of making argument, that there is none, then in such cases what would be the time limit.
A trap for the taxpayers in GST wherein apparently five provisions are simultaneously applicable for levy of penalty/recovery..
One of the plight for taxpayers in GST is that there are apparently five provisions (without including the provisions of fraud, or wilful misstatement etc) which charge them for delayed payment of Tax and ground reality is that these provisions are being invoked arbitrarily with a complete lack of clarity at ground level. The provisions are as follows-
Who is the proper officer in proceedings wherein the only question is levy of penalty under Section 122 and 125 of CGST Act, 2017
On a bare reading Section 122 and 125, it is obvious that unlike Section 123 and 129, there is no mention of proper officer to levy penalty and these sections only mention penalty amount for the offences.
Interim relief against retrospective application GST penalty u/s 122(1A) of the CGST Act prior to January 1, 2021
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Parag Garg held that no coercive action shall be taken, where penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017 was imposed for transactions conducted prior to the enforcement of the said provision.
Writ Petition Dismissed Against Penalty under Section 122(1A) for Enabling Fraudulent ITC through Fake Firms
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhupender Kumar declined to entertain the writ petition challenging penalty under Section 122(1A), holding that the petitioner failed to rebut allegations and has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Penalty can be levied on any person under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act
The Delhi High Court, in Bhupender Kumar case imposed a penalty amounting to approximately Rs. 285 crore under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, along with additional penalties under Sections 122(3)(a), (d), (e) and Section 125 of the CGST Act.
Whether Penalty can be levied on the employee of the Company u/s 122(1A) of CGST Act?
Whether Penalty can be levied on the employee of the Company u/s 122(1A) of CGST Act who is not directly involved in day-to-day affairs of the company and has not retained any benefit of the transaction?
Rs. 3731 Crore Penalty Demand from the employees set aside
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari allowed the writ petition and set aside the demand of penalty amount of Rs. 3731 Crore , thereby holding that, The penalty is imposable only on person under sub-section 1A of Section 122 of the CGST Act