SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7236

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) / 6960 / 2023



##PAGE1##

GAHC010260422023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6960/2023 M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 1D, 1E, TIRUPATI AND ASSOCIATES P LTD., BRAHMAPUTRA INDUSTRIAL PARK, GOURIPUR, VILLAGE- SILA, MOUZA- SILASINDURI, KAMRUP, ASSAM-781101, REPRESENTED BY THEIR AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. CHITWAN PRABHAKAR.

VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE AT UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110107.

2:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER GST AND EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001.

3:SUPERINTENDENT RANGE 1F GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GUWAHATI DIVISION-I ROOM NO. 215 GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001.

##PAGE2##

4:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R BORAH, MR. D BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST Date of Hearing : 20.06.2025 Date of Judgment : 19.09.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

JUDGMENT

Date : 19-09-2025 Heard Mr. R. Shah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST.

2. The petitioner before this Court is a company registered under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Brahmaputra Industrial Park, Gouripur, Village- Sila, Mouza, Silasinduri Kamrup, Assam-781101. The petitioner company is represented in the present proceedings by the authorized signatory. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as well as under the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and having its Goods and Service Tax Identification No.(“GSTN”) 18AAACP1272G1ZM). The Board of the petitioner‘s company has resolved by Resolution No.49/2022 dated 10.01.2022 to authorize one Mr. Chitwan Prabhakar as the person authorized to file the writ petition and represent the company in the present proceedings. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the marketing of soft drinks and fruit juices, as well as the manufacturing and supply of food products from its various locations across the country. The petitioner in the present proceedings has assailed the vires of the show cause notice bearing E-File No.GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/ADC/297/2023/2321-23 dated 05.09.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by alleging a purported mismatch between the details furnished by the petitioner in its annual return filed in the form GSTR-9C and the reconciliation statement filed in FORM of GSTR-9C. As per the show cause notice, the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reported in FORM GSTR-9C and the expenses reported in the financial statements, which are required to be disclosed in Table 14 of FORM GSTR-9C, appear to be unreconciled. Consequently, the petitioner is alleged to have wrongly availed and utilized Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 19,51,41,111/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Nine Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seven only) for the st st period 1 of July, 2017 to 31 March 2018.

##PAGE3##

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice has been assailed on the ground that the precondition necessary for the invocation of the jurisdiction of the proper officer under Section 61 is absent, and therefore, the impugned show cause notice could not have been issued on the grounds mentioned therein. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the proper officer, while scrutinizing the correctness of the returns filed by the petitioner company, apparently discovered a 'discrepancy', which is stated to be the cause of action for initiating further proceedings. The alleged discrepancy purportedly found by the p

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top