Goods And Services Tax

SUPREME COURT

24 (2025) 27 Centax 14 (S.C.)Union of India vs. Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari dated 24.01.2025

SCN issued under section 74, demanding penalty under section 122 and seeking prosecution under section 137, to an employee of a company for retaining the benefit from evasion of tax is not tenable as he is neither directly involved in the conduct of business, nor he is taxable person as well, as due to lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS

M/s. Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as a steamer agent of a Denmark based company named Maersk A/s for handling the shipping business across the globe. Petitioner was a Taxation Manager of M/s. Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd. and entrusted with assisting in tax compliances and representing Maersk A/s before tax authorities. Accordingly, an inquiry was carried out by DGGI, where it was found that Maersk A/s had wrongly utiliszed ITC amounting to Rs.₹1,561 crores. Further, petitioner was issued SCN under section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 imposing penalty amounting to Rs.₹3,731 crores under section 122(1A) and section 137 of CGST Act alleging that petitioner had assisted Maersk A/s in evading tax by incorrect utiliszation of ITC and retained the benefit arising thereof. Petitioner preferred a writ pet