GST LogoGST Press

Rohan Tanna Vs Union of India

Date: January 12, 2026

Court: High Court
Bench: Chhattisgarh
Type: Writ Petition
Judge(s)/Member(s): Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Download

Subject Matter

Writ Petition Against Adjudication Order Dismissed for Availability of Statutory Appeal

Appeal

Summary

The High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order that imposed penalties and recommended prosecution. The dismissal was primarily based on the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the petitioner's delay in approaching the Court after receiving due notices and opportunities for hearing.

Summary of Facts and Dispute:
  1. Impugned Action: The impugned action was Order-in-Original No. 120/JC/GST/2024-25 dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur Commissionerate, which imposed personal penalties aggregating to ₹1,37,31,013/- under Sections 122(1), 122(3), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017, and recommended prosecution under Section 132(1).
  2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without due service of notice and without adhering to the principles of natural justice, rendering it without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
  3. Core Question of Law: Whether a writ petition challenging an adjudication order imposing penalties is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available, and the petitioner had been accorded due notices and multiple opportunities for personal hearing.
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Due Process and Natural Justice

The Court observed the records and the respondent's submissions regarding the petitioner's engagement with the adjudication process.

  • Notice under Section 74: The petitioner himself had filed a copy of the notice (Annexure P/2) issued by the adjudicating authority under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, dated 31.10.2022.
  • Opportunities for Personal Hearing: Para 20 of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) explicitly stated that several opportunities for personal hearing were accorded to the petitioner and others through notices dated 07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 20.11.2024, and 04.12.2024.
  • Conclusion on Natural Justice: Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the petitioner did not appear before the adjudicating authority, leading the Court to conclude that proper opportunity for hearing had been provided and due process was followed.
Availability of Alternative Remedy and Timeliness

The Court applied established principles concerning the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies exist.

  • Alternative Remedy: An effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority.
  • Delay in Filing Writ Petition: The impugned order was passed on 05.02.2025, but the writ petition was filed approximately 11 months later, instead of pursuing the statutory appeal process.
  • Writ Jurisdiction: Considering the availability of a statutory alternative remedy and the significant delay in invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the High Court declined to entertain the instant writ petition.
Ruling:
  1. Outcome: The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
  2. Directions: No specific directions were issued to the officer, as the petition was dismissed on grounds of maintainability.
  3. Liberty: The petitioner retains the liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s) :

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original No. 120/JC/GST/2024-25 dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur Commissionerate, insofar as it relates to the Petitioner;

10.2 Quash the personal penalties aggregating to ₹1,37,31,013/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty-Seven Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Thirteen Only) imposed upon the Petitioner under Sections 122(1), 122(3), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unsustainable in law;

10.3 Quash the recommendation for prosecution under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act made against the Petitioner, as recorded in Clause (x) of the impugned order, being wholly unwarranted and unsupported by statutory requirements;

10.4 Direct the Respondents to forthwith release, withdraw, lift or annul any lien, attachment, debit freeze, garnishee proceedings or other coercive recovery measures initiated pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned adjudication order dated 05.02.2025;

10.5 Pass any other order or issue such directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without due service of notice to the petitioner, order impugned dated 05.02.2025 imposing penalty of Rs.1,35,31,013/- has been passed, thus impugned order has been passed against the petitioner without following the principle of natural justice, hence, the petition may be admitted for hearing.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that earlier notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hence hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2017”) was sent to the petitioner and copy of the such notice (Annexure P/2) dated 31.10.2022 has been filed by the petitioner himself. Despite service of notice and even after providing due opportunity of personal hearing vide notices dated 07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 20.11.2024 and 04.12.2024, as has been mentioned in para 20 of the impugned order, the petitioner did not appear before the adjudicating authority/respondent No.3, therefore, impugned order has been passed. He further submits that since final order has been passed by the adjudicating authority which may be challenged by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable, hence, the same may be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of record shows that petitioner himself has filed copy of notice (Annexure P/2) issued by the adjudicating authority/respondent No.3 under Section 74 of the Act, 2017. Para 20 of impugned order Annexure P/1 further shows that several opportunities of personal hearings were accorded to the petitioner and other persons vide notices dated 07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 20.11.2024 and 04.12.2024, despite that, they did not appear before the adjudicating authority, hence, it can not be said that proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner. Further, impugned order (Annexure P/1) was passed by the adjudicating authority/respondent No.3 on 05.02.2025, but instead of filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, it is being challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition, that too, after about 11 months from the date of passing of impugned order.

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and further considering the fact that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, before Appellate Authority, hence, I am not inclined to entertain instant writ petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.