2025 (1) TMI 1249 - SCH - GST

Recovery of dues - Interpretation of Statute - Section 122(1-A) and Section 137 of the GST Act - HELD THAT - The High Court after assigning cogent reasons took the view that the respondent herein was merely an employee of the Company and he could not have been fastened with the liability of Rs. 3731 Crore. There are no good reason to interfere with the common impugned Orders passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed.

Summary

**Summary of Supreme Court Judgment:**The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, reviewed a case involving the Revenue's attempt to recover Rs. 3731 Crore through show cause notices. The High Court had previously quashed these notices, determining that the jurisdictional requirements under Section 74 of the CGST Act were not met, and that Sections 122(1-A) and 137 did not support vicarious liability for the petitioner, who was merely an employee. The High Court found the demand "highly unconscionable and disproportionate," as the liability was alleged to belong to Maersk, not the petitioner.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the judgment. However, it left open the question of law regarding the interpretation of Sections 122(1-A) and 137 of the GST Act. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.