Jindal Communication Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 others (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court recently addressed a dispute involving a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand raised against Jindal Communication by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated May 27, 2024, and a subsequent final order dated August 8, 2024, which levied a demand of Rs. 76,11,305. The demand stemmed from an alleged difference between the petitioner’s reported GST turnover and PAN turnover for the period of April 2019 to March 2020, amounting to Rs. 3,84,40,935.81.
According to submissions made during the proceedings, the petitioner firm, Jindal Communication, registered under the GST Act since October 15, 2019, operates in the business of telephone sets and SIM cards. A separate, pre-existing firm, M/s Jindal Marketing Company, which migrated from the VAT regime to GST, deals in wholesale FMCG goods. A key point of contention was that both firms were registered under the GST using the same Permanent Account Number (PAN).
The petitioner argued that the turnover difference identified by the authorities for Jindal Communication was, in fact, the turnover belonging to Jindal Marketing Company. It was submitted that returns for Jindal Marketing Company reflecting this identical turnover had been duly filed. The petitioner contended that the demand notice against Jindal Communication arose solely due to the shared PAN causing a mix-up in attributing the turnover. Upon discovering the final order and demand in January 2025, the petitioner attempted to seek rectification under Section 161 of the Act, but the application was reportedly rejected on grounds of being time-barred.
