Maruti Suzuki subsidiary hit with ₹86 crore CGST penalty, plans to appeal
Maruti Suzuki
India Ltd (MSIL) on Friday said in its regulatory filings that its wholly owned subsidiary,
Suzuki Motor Gujarat
(SMG), has received an appellate order from the Gujarat Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Authority upholding a tax demand of ₹86.1 crore along with additional interest and a penalty of ₹8.6 crore.
The order pertains to the period between April 2020 and August 2022 and concerns tax liabilities under the
reverse charge mechanism
for certain services. SMG had already deposited the tax amount prior to the issuance of the original show cause notice.
The CGST Commissioner (Appeals) has also allowed SMG to partially withdraw its appeal related to an earlier period — July 2017 to March 2020 — to facilitate an amnesty application under Section 128A of the CGST Act.
MSIL said that SMG will be filing a further appeal against the appellate order before the Tribunal. However, the company clarified that the development will not have any major financial or operational impact on the listed entity.
This comes at a time when MSIL continues to consolidate its market leadership, posting robust July 2025 sales, supported by strong domestic demand and improved export performance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Chit fund scam accused arrested from TN
Bhubaneswar: CBI on Monday arrested a suspect who had been evading arrest since 2018 in connection with a chit fund scam in Odisha. The arrested accused was identified as Sivakumar Gangadharan, also known as G Sivakumar. "Sivakumar was a proclaimed offender in chit fund scam involving Rightmax Technotrade International Limited. He was serving as a director of the company and had been on run since 2018 by frequently changing his whereabouts," according to a CBI statement. The investigation, which commenced in 2014, centred on accusations of fraud, criminal conspiracy, and breaches of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. "Following a court's declaration of him as a proclaimed offender, Sivakumar was located in Karur, Tamil Nadu, through technical surveillance and intelligence gathering. A CBI team from Bhubaneswar arrested him and presented him before the special chief judicial magistrate, who ordered 14 days of judicial custody until August 18," the statement said. The CBI investigation revealed that the company collected huge funds from unsuspecting investors by offering attractive investment options. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Female Athletes Right Now Undo One particular scheme promised investors a monthly interest rate of 10 per cent on their deposits. In Feb 2015, SEBI issued directives prohibiting the company from collecting public investments. Official records indicate the company initiated operations in Bangalore in April 2010, subsequently expanding to Odisha and Tamil Nadu. While the company accumulated crores of rupees in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, it defrauded Odisha investors of about Rs 30 lakh. In Odisha, majority of the affected investors belonged to Ganjam district.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Green regulators can seek bank guarantees from polluters: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that environmental regulators, such as the Pollution Control Boards, can impose environmental compensation and seek bank guarantees from polluting entities as part of their preventive measures against potential environmental damage. 'We hold that the environmental regulators, the Pollution Control Boards, can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of money or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts,' the Supreme Court said. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that such actions by State Boards are lawful and fall within their powers. However, the Bench stressed that this authority must be exercised fairly and transparently. 'While we hold that the Boards have the power to direct the payment of environmental damages, we make it clear that this power must always be guided by two overarching principles. First, that the power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner; and second, the process of exercising this power must be infused with transparency,' the judgment said. The court emphasized that such action must be distinguished from a penalty. 'There is a distinction between a direction for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage or as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage on the one hand; and a punitive action of fine or imprisonment for violations under Chapters VII of the Water Act and VI of the Air Act on the other hand.' The Bench also referred to the polluter pays principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence, stating that actual environmental degradation is not a prerequisite for demanding compensation. Instead, the potential for environmental harm is sufficient. 'The actual degradation of the environment is not a necessary condition for the application of the polluter pays principle, as long as the offending activities have the potential of degrading the environment," the judgment said. The Court also echoed the view taken by the National Green Tribunal in Swastik Ispat Pvt Ltd, where the tribunal had upheld the use of bank guarantees as a lawful method of securing environmental compliance. In the present case, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had appealed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had held that it was not empowered to levy compensatory damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The High Court ruled that such action amounted to a penalty under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts, and as such, the procedure for imposing and collecting compensatory damages outlined thereunder should be the only method available.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Pollution control boards can seek bank guarantees for damage, says SC
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that environmental regulators, such as the Pollution Control Boards, can impose environmental compensation and seek bank guarantees from polluting entities as part of their preventive measures against potential environmental damage. 'We hold that the environmental regulators, the Pollution Control Boards, can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of money or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts,' the Supreme Court said. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that such actions by State Boards are lawful and fall within their powers. However, the Bench stressed that this authority must be exercised fairly and transparently. 'While we hold that the Boards have the power to direct the payment of environmental damages, we make it clear that this power must always be guided by two overarching principles. First, that the power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner; and second, the process of exercising this power must be infused with transparency,' the judgment said. The court emphasized that such action must be distinguished from a penalty. 'There is a distinction between a direction for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage or as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage on the one hand; and a punitive action of fine or imprisonment for violations under Chapters VII of the Water Act and VI of the Air Act on the other hand.' The Bench also referred to the polluter pays principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence, stating that actual environmental degradation is not a prerequisite for demanding compensation. Instead, the potential for environmental harm is sufficient. 'The actual degradation of the environment is not a necessary condition for the application of the polluter pays principle, as long as the offending activities have the potential of degrading the environment," the judgment said. The Court also echoed the view taken by the National Green Tribunal in Swastik Ispat Pvt Ltd, where the tribunal had upheld the use of bank guarantees as a lawful method of securing environmental compliance. In the present case, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had appealed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had held that it was not empowered to levy compensatory damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The High Court ruled that such action amounted to a penalty under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts, and as such, the procedure for imposing and collecting compensatory damages outlined thereunder should be the only method available.
