Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India And 3 Ors (Gauhati High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C)/6960/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/12/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India And 3 Ors (Gauhati High Court)

In a recent development, the Gauhati High Court, in the case of M/S. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union Of India And 3 ORS, has granted a stay on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Show Cause Notice issued to Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The court’s decision is based on the petitioner’s contention that the statutory procedures outlined in Section 61 and Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, along with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017, were not followed.

The petitioner argued that before issuing a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017, the Proper Officer must adhere to certain conditions precedent. This includes the issuance of a notice to the registered person in Form GST ASMT-10, allowing them the opportunity to accept or refute the discrepancy or provide an explanation in Form GST ASMT-11. The petitioner emphasized that without fulfilling these mandatory steps, the Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice.

The court took note of the petitioner’s argument that, at the stage of issuing the show cause notice, there should be a prima facie opinion formed by the Proper Officer that there is a violation of the statutory obligation. However, in the present case, the Form GST ASMT-10 was not issued to the petitioner, raising concerns about the compliance with mandatory conditions.

The petitioner further contended that the alleged discrepancy in the case pertained to the petitioner not submitting information in Table 14 of FORM GSTR-9C, a reconciliation statement. However, it was highlighted that the submission of information in Table 14 had been made optional for certain financial years by relevant notifications. Therefore, the petitioner argued that the non-filing of information in Table 14 should not be considered as an error or discrepancy.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031