Siddhi Vinayak Steel vs. Joint Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise
Held
The Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies. This included the right to institute separate proceedings, such as filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority or a fresh writ petition before this Court, by Petitioner No. 2 as an individual. The Court noted that the petitions were filed within three months of the impugned order, thus invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the Court directed that if any appeal is preferred by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order, it shall be accepted without insisting on the period of limitation, effectively condoning the delay for filing such appeals within that two-week period. No issue was expressly left undecided as the petitions were withdrawn.
Facts
The petitioners, Siddhi Vinayak Steel & Anr. and Dadra Nagar Steel Private Limited & Anr., filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The petitions challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The core of the challenge revolved around the interpretation of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act, 2017, and its applicability to Petitioner No. 2, an individual. The petitioners argued that the demand and penalty imposed on Petitioner No. 2 were untenable based on prior court interpretations of this section. The petitions were filed on April 9, 2025, challenging an order dated January 15, 2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand and penalty imposed on Petitioner No. 2, an individual, are legally tenable in light of the interpretation of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act, 2017, by this Court in earlier decisions? The Petitioner argued that based on previous interpretations of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act, 2017, the demand and penalty levied on Petitioner No. 2, who is an individual, are unsustainable in law. The Respondent (Revenue) did not present any arguments against this plea, as they did not oppose the withdrawal of the petitions. The Court was not required to decide on the merits of the interpretation of Section 122(1-A) due to the withdrawal.
Sections Cited
Section 122(1-A), Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
5-WP-2048-2026 (C).DOC + Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2048 OF 2026 Siddhi Vinayak Steel & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Joint Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise …Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2026 Dadra Nagar Steel Private Limited & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Joint Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise …Respondent Mr Gopal Mundhra, a/w Rajath Bharadwaj, Samikshya Chatur i/b. Economic Laws Practice for the Petitioners in both Petitions. Mr Ram Ochani, a/w Niyati Mankad, Priyanka Singh for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both Petitions. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 21st JULY 2026. PC:-
After hearing the matter for some time, particularly on the plea that in view of interpretation of Section 122(1-A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST” for short) in earlier decisions of this Court, the demand/penalty imposed on the Petitioner No.2 who is an individual, is untenable in the eyes of law. Mr. Gopal Mundra, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw these Writ Petitions with liberty for his clients to avail appropriate legal remedy under the law by P
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.