M/S Triumfo Technogroup PVT. LTD. And Another vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Facts
The petitioners, M/s Triumfo Technogroup Pvt. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging a Prosecution Letter dated December 6, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 2. They also sought to quash a Sanction Order dated October 28, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 4, and sought a direction not to lodge prosecution against them. The petitioners argued that reliefs (B) and (C) were concluded by a previous Division Bench judgment. The impugned letter offered the petitioners the option to compound offences under the Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2012, by filing an application with the Chief Commissioner, Customs and Central Tax, Meerut Zone, by December 16, 2021. The petitioners contended that this offer was contrary to Circular No. 1009/16/2015-CX dated October 23, 2015.
Held
The Court held that the Prosecution Letter dated December 6, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 2, which offered the petitioners the option to compound offences, was merely an offer and not a compulsion. The Court found that the letter did not compel the petitioners to opt for compounding, and it was entirely within their choice to do so or not. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the issuance of this letter. Regarding reliefs (B) and (C), the Court noted the petitioners' submission that these reliefs were concluded by a Division Bench judgment in Kanhaiya Lal Saraswat vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (5) ADJ 568, and accepted this submission for dismissal of those aspects. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition as a whole. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Prosecution Letter dated December 6, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 2, offering the petitioners the option to compound offences, is illegal and warrants quashing, particularly in light of the petitioners' contention that it is contrary to Circular No. 1009/16/2015-CX dated October 23, 2015? (Question of law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the offer for compounding was contrary to the cited circular and sought quashing of the prosecution letter. They also stated that reliefs (B) and (C) were concluded by a prior Division Bench judgment in Kanhaiya Lal Saraswat vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (5) ADJ 568, and in that regard, the writ petition could be dismissed. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but their counsel appeared before the court. The court's reasoning implies that the respondents' position was that the letter was a mere offer and not coercive.
Sections Cited
Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2012
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 86 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Triumfo Technogroup Pvt. Ltd. And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Vedika Nath Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dileep Chandra Mathur,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Prosecution Letter C.No.V(30)Tech/CGST-N/D-VI/OIO/Triumfo/06/2020/1058, dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No.2: B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 not to lodge Prosecution against the Petitioners, as the same is contrary to Circular No.1009/16/2015- CX, dated 23.10.2015; C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records and quashing the Sanction Order No.01/2021-22 dated 28.10.2021 issued by respondent no.4;"
Learned counsel for the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.