M/S. Limagrain INDIA Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a Notice dated 28-04-2023, an order in original dated 13-06-2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and a consequential order in appeal dated 27-03-2025. The challenge pertained to the tax demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders, claiming they were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the CGST Act, particularly Section 128A concerning the Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner also sought directions to enable them to avail the benefits of the scheme, which they claimed to be eligible for, and to set aside the demand for tax. The revenue authorities are the respondents. The matter was brought before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached between the parties. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer within four weeks from the date of the order. Subsequently, the petitioner is to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) within three months from its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal is mandated to decide the second appeal in accordance with the law. Crucially, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax liability within the stipulated time, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner until the Tribunal's decision on the second appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, including the notice, order in original, and order in appeal, are illegal, arbitrary, and in gross violation of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, specifically Section 128A, thereby preventing the petitioner from availing the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme (Question of law)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and that they were eligible to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme notified under Section 128A of the Act. They argued that the authorities failed to consider their eligibility and wrongly denied them the benefits of the scheme, leading to an illegal and arbitrary tax demand. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or State respondents. However, their appearance indicates their opposition to the petitioner's claims.