Himanshu Vij vs. Chief Commissioner, Central Tax And Others

Held

The Court noted that the argument regarding the retrospective applicability of Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, was not advanced or considered by the concerned officer. Furthermore, the Court observed that an appeal against the order lies before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the Court decided not to entertain the writ petition at this stage. It left it open for the petitioner to raise all submissions made in the writ petition before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed, it should be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months. No specific finding was given on the merits of the petitioner's argument regarding Section 122(1A).

Facts

The petitioner, Himanshu Vij, has filed a writ petition challenging an order in original passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise. The challenge is to the imposition of penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that this provision was introduced effective January 1, 2021, and therefore, cannot be applied to alleged acts or omissions that occurred in the financial year 2018-19. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, which was introduced with effect from January 1, 2021, can be retrospectively applied to impose a penalty for acts or omissions that occurred in the financial year 2018-19? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, is not applicable to the period in question (2018-19) as it was introduced much later, on January 1, 2021. Therefore, the penalty imposed under this provision is illegal. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument advanced by the revenue or state regarding this issue. However, it notes that the argument was not advanced or considered by the concerned officer.