Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the amount of pre-deposit

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the amount of pre-deposit in the case of M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, U.P. & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 5266 of 2026, order dated March 20, 2026]

That the Honb. Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-

• In such a situation, as referred to above, the two assessment orders were made a subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, essentially on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of preferring a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Sales Tax Act, 2017 by making a pre-deposit of 10 per cent of the principal amount. 
• Since the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, the petitioner is here before us with the present petition.
• It also appears from the materials on record that in the first round, after the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, seeking to challenge the two assessment orders, the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority declined to entertain those appeals on the ground of failure to make the pre-deposit. 
• Today, the position is that the principal amount towards the liability as fixed by the department comes to around Rs. 67 crore. If the appeal is to be preferred, the statutory pre-deposit of 10 per cent would come to around Rs. 6.70 crore. 
• Rohatgi, has manifold contentions to raise with regard to the legality and validity of the two assessment orders and the manner in which the department proceeded with the assessment proceedings. He has also highlighted the financial constraints at the end of his client in making a pre-deposit.
• We direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3.50 crore with the concerned department within a period of two weeks from today. The department shall acknowledge the receipt of the said amount in writing. 
• Once the amount is deposited, the receipt of the same shall be produced before the Registry of this Court. Upon production of the receipt of deposit, the registry shall issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 11.05.2026. 
• Since the petitioner has agreed to deposit the amount of Rs.3.50 crore within the aforesaid stipulated time, no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the two assessment orders.
  
  
  
  
  
  

Honb. Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted the regular bail in the case of Mohit Singla and Bhanuj Jindal (Kanha Concast). The DGGI Ludhiana has arrested on 07.11.2025 thereafter on 06.02.2026 Honb. Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted the regular bail. CRM-M-400-2026 (P&H)

 Honb. Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted the regular bail in the case of Mohit Singla and Bhanuj Jindal (Kanha Concast). The DGGI Ludhiana has arrested on 07.11.2025 thereafter on 06.02.2026 Honb. Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted the regular bail. CRM-M-400-2026 (P&H)

माननीय पंजाब और हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने मोहित सिंगला और भानुज जिंदल (कान्हा कॉन्कास्ट) के मामले में रेगुलर बेल दे दी है। DGGI लुधियाना ने उन्हें 07.11.2025 को गिरफ्तार किया था, जिसके बाद 06.02.2026 को माननीय पंजाब और हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने रेगुलर बेल दे दी गई है ।

After the implementation of GST controversy arises that seller collects the tax from purchaser but the same was not deposited in the government treasury and the bonafide purchaser is held responsible for the same so under these circumstances the Honb. Punjab and Haryana High Court has pleased to pass the interim orders that where the notices were issued and order was not passed then authorities will not pass the final order and where the orders were passed in that very situation no recovery should be taken against the petitioner.

 

After the implementation of GST controversy arises that seller collects the tax from purchaser but the same was not deposited in the government treasury and the bonafide purchaser is held responsible for the same so under these circumstances the Honb. Punjab and Haryana High Court has pleased to pass the interim orders that where the notices were issued and order was not passed then authorities will not pass the final order and where the orders were passed in that very situation no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner.

 

GST लागू होने के बाद यह विवाद उठा कि सेलर खरीदार से टैक्स तो वसूल लेता है, लेकिन उसे सरकारी खजाने में जमा नहीं करता और इसके लिए असली खरीदार को ज़िम्मेदार ठहराया जाता है। इसलिए, इन परिस्थितियों में माननीय पंजाब और हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने अंतरिम आदेश पारित किए हैं कि जहाँ नोटिस जारी किए गए थे और आदेश पारित नहीं किया गया था, वहाँ अधिकारी अंतिम आदेश पारित नहीं करेंगे और जहाँ आदेश पारित किए गए थे, उस स्थिति में याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ कोई रिकवरी नहीं की जाएगी।

 

 

The Honb. Rajasthan High Court has observed as under "the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 is unreasonable and are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(G), 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as it leaves a situation where if the subsequent seller does not deposit the requisite GST and has pleased to pass the interim order no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as in the present case the orders were passed and demand was created.

 The Honb. Rajasthan High Court has observed as under "the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 is unreasonable and are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(G), 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as it leaves a situation where if the subsequent seller does not deposit the requisite GST and has pleased to pass the interim order no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as in the present case the orders were passed and demand was created.

Honb. Himachal Pradesh High Court is pleased to stay the proceedings on the issue that if the seller or the subsequent seller has not deposited the tax then innocent buyer cannot be held responsible for the purchases made as he has already paid the tax.

 Honb. Himachal Pradesh High Court is pleased to stay the proceedings on the issue that if the seller or the subsequent seller has not deposited the tax then innocent buyer cannot be held responsible for the purchases made as he has already paid the tax to the seller. Copy of the interim order is enclosed.

Honb. Himachal Pradesh High Court has pleased to pass the order that either CGST authorities or SGST authorities under the GST Act can proceed on the same subject matter

 Honb. Himachal Pradesh High Court has pleased to pass the order that either CGST authorities or SGST authorities under the GST Act can proceed on the same subject matter and has specifically observed where both the authorities have initiated the proceedings then both the authorities should coordinate and only one can proceed. This observation is recorded at Page 9 Para 13(iv) of the order.

The Honb. Session Court has granted the bail in the GST evasion case of Rs.14.09 crore

 

The Honb. Session Court has granted the bail in the GST evasion case of Rs.14.09 crore as the department has submitted that four firms are run by Kapil in the capacity of master mind though registrations are in the name of different proprietors even the affidavits were submitted before the magistrate that they have not conducted any business and the one Kapil who is accused has conducted the business. The honb. court granted the bail.

The applicant Kapil was arrested on 03.10.2025 for alleged involvement in a GST fraud of ₹14.09 crores through four bogus firms—JS Enterprises, BMS Enterprises, Shiv Shakti Trading Company, and Kumar Traders—whose addresses were found non-existent. The prosecution claims that computer hardware and bank trail links point towards the applicant, though all evidence is documentary in nature. The applicant has remained in custody for over 60 days so granted the bail.