Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube
gst-panacea-logo
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Case Title

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Court

Gauhati High Court

Honorable Judges

Justice Manish Choudhury

Citation

2023 (12) GSTPanacea 130 HC Gauhati

WP(C)/6960/2023

Judgment  Date

13-December-2023

Summary of the Landmark Judgment of Gauhati High Court:

In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has stayed the operation of a demand-cum-show cause notice issued by the department, citing the absence of the issuance of Form GST ASMT-10. The petitioner contested the notice, which aimed at recovering unreconciled Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in Form GSTR-9C. The petitioner raised concerns about the validity of the proceedings, emphasizing the failure to issue notice in FORM GST ASMT-10 as per Rule 99.

The petitioner’s non-submission of information in Table 14 of FORM GSTR-9C resulted in a mismatch with the details in FORM GSTR-9. The petitioner argued that providing such information was optional during the relevant financial year (FY 2017-18).

The court held that, in this case, Form GST ASMT-10 was not issued to the petitioner. The issuance of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) by the proper officer was deemed to be without compliance with mandatory conditions, particularly those outlined in Section 61 read with Rule 99. The court emphasized that, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice under Section 73(1), any discrepancy is considered a mere discrepancy. However, at the stage of issuing the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, there is the formation of a prima facie opinion by the Proper Officer that an act has occurred in violation of the statutory obligations imposed on the noticee.

 In the legal context, a significant development has occurred with the issuance of an impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice by the Proper Officer. The core contention revolves around the assertion that the issuance of this notice transpired without adherence to mandatory conditions precedent. Consequently, the legal argument posits that the operation of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice should be stayed, implying that its enforcement or further proceedings should be halted.

The crux of the matter lies in the belief that the Proper Officer failed to comply with essential prerequisites when issuing the notice, rendering the entire process legally questionable. The term “conditions precedent” suggests that there are specific requirements or steps that must be fulfilled before certain legal actions can be taken. In this case, the contention is that the issuance of the notice lacked compliance with these crucial conditions.

The pronouncement of this judgment carries substantial implications, suggesting a potential paradigm shift in legal precedents. If this ruling is adopted and followed as a precedent, it could lead to a significant consequence – namely, the invalidation of a multitude of notices that were issued in September 2023. This would imply that a considerable number of legal actions initiated during that period could be deemed void due to a failure to meet the necessary conditions precedent.

The broader impact of this judgment extends beyond the immediate case at hand, as it could set a precedent affecting a wide array of legal proceedings initiated during the specified timeframe. Legal practitioners and entities involved in such cases may need to reassess and potentially contest the validity of notices issued in September 2023, given the precedent established by this judgment.

In essence, the legal landscape could experience a transformative shift as a result of this ruling, prompting a reevaluation of the procedural aspects of issuing notices and their adherence to mandatory conditions precedent. This development underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings and has the potential to influence the outcomes of various cases initiated within the specified period.

 
Download Pdf:
 
For Reference Visit:
 
Read another Case Law:
 

Company Policy

GET STARTED​

IMPORTANT LINKS

Weekly Newsletter