M/S ASP TRADERS v. STATE OF U.P.
Discusses principles of natural justice, reasoned orders, and statutory interpretation applicable beyond GST law.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 890
Decision Date: 24-07-2025
List of Laws
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: The judgment extensively discusses Section 129, which outlines the mechanism for detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. Section 129(1) authorizes detention and prescribes conditions for release. Section 129(3) requires the proper officer to issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter pass an order. The court emphasizes that the language of section 129(3) is categorical in stating that the officer "shall issue a notice... and thereafter, pass an order", reinforcing the mandatory nature of passing a reasoned order. Section 129(4) mandates that no tax or penalty shall be determined without providing an opportunity of hearing. Section 129(5) provides that upon payment of the amounts under sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice shall be deemed to be concluded; however, the court interprets this deeming fiction as not absolving the responsibility of the proper officer to pass an order concluding the proceedings, especially when payment is made under protest or objections are filed. The judgment also refers to Section 107, which pertains to the right of appeal under the CGST Act, arguing that the absence of a reasoned order under Section 129(3) effectively deprives the taxpayer of this statutory remedy. The judgment also mentions Section 168, which provides the power to issue instructions to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the procedures. Section 49 is mentioned in the context of electronic cash ledger or electronic credit ledger.
- Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017: The judgment refers to Rule 142, which reinforces and operationalizes the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly with regard to the procedural aspects of issuance of notices, orders, and payment of tax and penalty. Rule 142(3) states that on payment of tax and penalty under section 129(1), intimation shall be given in Form DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an order in Form DRC-05 concluding the proceedings. Rule 142(5) mandates uploading a summary of the final order in Form GST DRC-07.
- Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: The judgment mentions that Section 20 of the IGST Act adopts the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act mutatis mutandis.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 265, which mandates that no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law. The court argues that failure to issue a speaking order in response to a show cause notice potentially violates Article 265.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that when a taxpayer submits a response to a show cause notice, the adjudicating authority is required to consider such response and render a reasoned, speaking order. It also discusses the concepts of waiver and acquiescence, stating that the payment of tax and penalty cannot be treated as a waiver or abandonment, especially when the appellant has clearly objected to the demand. The judgment also refers to the principle that every show cause notice must culminate in a final, reasoned order.
🔒 For Members Only