Case Law Details
Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
In a recent legal saga that has captured attention within the financial and legal circles, the Bombay High Court adjudicated upon a matter that underscored the intricacies and potential injustices within the realm of tax law. The case of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari versus the Union of India brought to light the extraordinary predicament faced by a salaried employee, accused of liabilities amounting to a staggering Rs. 37,31,00,38,326 under sections 122(1-A), 137(1), and 137(2) of the CGST Act.
Context and Allegations: The crux of the issue revolved around a show cause notice issued to Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari, designated as a Senior Tax Operations Manager cum Authorized Person of Maersk, a prominent multinational corporation. The notice alleged that Hundekari, along with other employees, aided and abetted Maersk in committing various offenses under the CGST Act, resulting in substantial tax evasion. The notice demanded a penalty equivalent to the tax evaded by Maersk, amounting to an astronomical sum of Rs. 37,31,00,38,326.
Jurisdictional Challenges: Hundekari challenged the validity of the show cause notice on the grounds of jurisdictional overreach and misapplication of relevant provisions. The High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of sections 122(1-A) and 137 of the CGST Act to ascertain their applicability to an individual employee such as Hundekari.
Legal Analysis: Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act provides for the imposition of penalties on taxable persons who retain the benefit of certain transactions conducted in contravention of the Act. The Court observed that this provision explicitly applies to taxable persons, and as such, an individual employee like Hundekari, lacking the legal status of a taxable person, cannot fall within its purview.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
