Deepak Singh @ Dipa Singh S/O Sh. Hari Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/19404/2025HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02105130202510 February 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Singh @ Dipa Singh, proprietor of M/s Shree Sidhi Vinayak Trading Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by GST authorities. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as their reply to a show cause notice was not properly considered. They also argued that a relevant Circular dated 06.07.2022 was ignored, and the demand was wrongly raised under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The impugned order also imposed a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the Act. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. to argue that the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act would not preclude their writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a reply was filed, with the petitioner's contentions being noticed in the impugned order. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner's contentions in the reply were allegedly not properly considered, the correct course of action would be to pursue remedies before the Appellate Authority. The Court found that the factual aspects concerning the issuance of invoices and liability under Section 74 versus Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act, 2017, were best examined by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Court refrained from entertaining the writ petition at that stage, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 15 days. The Court directed that the appeal be heard and decided on merits within three months, and also directed the Appellate Authority to decide on the requirement of pre-deposit and consider condoning it if appropriate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, given the alleged violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable because the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of their reply to the show cause notice and without considering Circular dated 06.07.2022. They contended that the demand was wrongly raised under Section 74, and the principles of natural justice were violated, thus invoking the exception to the alternative remedy rule, citing M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue's position, or at least the Court's interpretation of the situation, was that the principles of natural justice were not violated as a show cause notice was issued and a reply was filed. The Court also noted that the petitioner's contentions were recorded in the impugned order.

Sections Cited

Section 107, Section 74, Section 122(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:6173-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19404/2025 Deepak Singh @ Dipa Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, Address- Kailash Puri Station Road, Near Parasuram Dharamsala, Bharatpur, Ra- jasthan- 321001, Proprietor M/s Shree Sidhi Vinayak Trading Company, Nai Mandi, Station Road, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Goods And Services Tax, Jaipur Zone, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar. 3. The Additional Commissioner, Cgst Commissionerate, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner, Ra- jasthan Goods And Services Tax, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kawal Singh Loha with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Arnav Singh HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 10/02/2026

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021) and submitted that alternate remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) would not in any manner infringe

[2026:RJ-JP:6173-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19404/2025] upon his right to file a writ petition challenging the impugned or- der as the same has been passed without complying with the prin- ciples of natural justice. The submission is that while a reply was filed, the same had not been properly considered by the authorit- ies while passing the impugned order. It is his submission that Cir- cular dated 06.07.2022 has not been considered and the demand has wrongfully been raised under Section 74 from the petitioner.

While additionally imposing penalty in terms of Section 122 (1)(vii) of the Act of 2017, we find that the petitioner’s conten- tions have been noticed in the impugned order. A show cause no- tice was given to the petitioner whereafter reply has been filed.

We, therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural justice have been violated. If a show cause notice would not have been given and the order would have been passed then perhaps he had a case for directly enter- taining the petition. However, if the contentions raised in the reply are alleged to have not been properly considered, the correct ap- proach would have been to take up all the remedies before the Appellate Authority where all the contentions can be raised. The aspect whether the petitioner is liable under Section 74 of the Act of 2017 or is liable only with respect to the penalty in terms of Section 122 (1)(vii) of the Act of 2017, can best be examined by the Appellate Authority as the factual aspects relating to having is- sued the invoices themselves or by another entity is a purely fac- tual scenario, which the concerned Appellate Authority has to ex- amine.

Leaving it open for the petitioner to file an appeal and direct- ing the same to be considered on merits, we refrain from enter-

[2026:RJ-JP:6173-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19404/2025] taining the writ petition, at this stage, with liberty to file an appeal within a period of 15 days. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be heard and decided on merits within a period of three months. It is directed that the Appellate Authority shall also take a decision whether the pre-deposit is required to be made by the petitioner or not, in the facts of the case, and may pass appropri- ate orders of condoning the requirement of pre-deposit.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/20

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.