Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner is an Assessee before the respondent authorities, in terms of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (in short 'CGST Act'). The CGST Act was implemented with effect from 01.07.2017 and provides for the assessment of turnover from sales and services as enumerated therein. Regular monthly returns have been filed by the petitioner and this is not disputed.

12. An assessment under Section 73 of the CGST Act, in circumstances where a determination of tax that is either not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded or Input Tax Credit that has been wrongly availed or utilized, is to be completed within three years. In cases where the Assessing Authority believes that there has been under-assessment by virtue of fraud, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, a period of five years is provided in terms of Section 74 (10) of the CGST Act.

21. As regards the allegation that the Managing Director had been coerced into signing statement dated 21.02.2019 under threat of arrest, the counter states that ‘they had only pointed out the statutory provision (section http://www.judis.nic.in 132 of the Act) as it exists’. The respondents reiterate that the petitioner has indulged in Bill Trading activity which is an offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act. According to them Section 132 (i) (c) read with Section 132 (i) (b) of the Act provides that where the person has availed Input Tax Credit using Invoices/Bill without actually supplying such goods or services, he/it has committed a punishable offence. Such punishment, where the benefit wrongly availed exceeds rupees five hundred lakhs, is imprisonment which may extend to five years with fine. It is on the strength of the aforesaid conclusion, on merits, that the Department accepts in counter as well as orally before me that the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act were only ‘pointed out’ to the petitioner and there was no coercion at all!

40. In the present case, the Department does not dispute that action was intended or envisaged in the light of Section 132 of the CGST Act, the counter fairly stating that the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act were ‘shown’ to the Assessee. There is thus no doubt in my mind that the Department intended to intimidate the petitioner with the possibility of punishment under 132 and this action is contrary to the scheme http://www.judis.nic.in of the Act. While the activities of an assessee contrary to the scheme of the Act are liable to be addressed swiftly and effectively by the Department, (the statute in question being a revenue statute where strict interpretation is the norm), officials cannot be seen to be acting in excess of the authority vested in them under the statute. I am of the considered view that the power to punish set out in Section 132 of the Act would stand triggered only once it is established that an assessee has ‘committed’ an offence that has to necessarily be post-determination of the demand due from an assessee, that itself has to necessarily follow the process of an assessment.