HomeGSTSC Disposes GST Dept’s Appeal Against Calcutta HC Order Citing Monetary Limit...

SC Disposes GST Dept’s Appeal Against Calcutta HC Order Citing Monetary Limit on Penalty

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Department in a GST penalty dispute, holding that the matter falls below the monetary threshold prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) for pursuing cases before the apex court.

The case arose from a dispute over penalty imposed on an assessee for shortage in quantity of goods during transportation. The Calcutta High Court had earlier set aside the order of the appellate authority which levied penalty on the entire consignment, instead directing that the authority should recompute penalty only in respect of the shortage, at the rate of 200%, and refund the excess penalty already remitted within eight weeks.

Challenging this decision, the Revenue approached the Supreme Court. However, during the proceedings, the respondent relied on CBIC Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST dated 26 June 2024, which bars the department from filing or pursuing appeals in cases where the monetary impact is less than ₹2 crore. The penalty in dispute was approximately ₹13 lakh, far below this limit.

The Revenue argued that the case might fall under the exceptions listed in Paragraph 4(iv) of the circular, which cover recurring issues or interpretation of GST provisions such as classification, valuation, refunds, or place of supply.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the High Court’s order did not involve any recurring issue or interpretation of law but was confined to recomputation of penalty in a particular transaction. Hence, it did not fall within the exempted categories.

The Court thus declined to entertain the appeal, disposing of the matter strictly in terms of the CBIC circular.

Case Details

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue & Ors. Versus Usha Gupta

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos.4533-4534/2023

Date: 24/09/2025

Read More: Delhi High Court Upholds Reassessment in Alleged Accommodation Entry Case, Sets Aside ITAT Order

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Balance Sheet-ST-3 Mismatch Requires Proper Reconciliation: CESTAT Remands ₹6.72 Crore Service Tax Demand

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)...

General Penalty Unsustainable Where Late Fee Already Levied: Madras High Court Quashes Duplicate GST Late Fee Demand

The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department cannot levy a duplicate...

3 Month Timeline U/s 121 IBC Is Directory, Delay in Bankruptcy Petition Against Personal Guarantor Can Be Condoned: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that the three-month period prescribed...

NCLT Can’t Interfere with ED’s PMLA Attachments During CIRP: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, has held that the National...

More like this

Balance Sheet-ST-3 Mismatch Requires Proper Reconciliation: CESTAT Remands ₹6.72 Crore Service Tax Demand

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)...

General Penalty Unsustainable Where Late Fee Already Levied: Madras High Court Quashes Duplicate GST Late Fee Demand

The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department cannot levy a duplicate...

3 Month Timeline U/s 121 IBC Is Directory, Delay in Bankruptcy Petition Against Personal Guarantor Can Be Condoned: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that the three-month period prescribed...