Dadra Nagar Steel Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

WP/2326/2026HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01024670202521 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE ADVAIT M. SETHNA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The Court permitted the withdrawal of the Writ Petitions. The primary reason for withdrawal was the petitioner's contention that the penalty imposed on Petitioner No. 2, an individual, was untenable in law, citing earlier decisions of the Court on the interpretation of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act. The Revenue did not oppose this request. The Court, considering the presentation date of the writ petitions (April 9, 2025) and the impugned order date (January 15, 2025), invoked Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It directed that if the petitioners file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order, the same shall be accepted without insisting on the normal period of limitation. The limitation period for filing such an appeal was deemed condoned if filed within the stipulated two weeks.

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 dated January 15, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The core of the challenge was based on the interpretation of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that the demand/penalty imposed on Petitioner No. 2, an individual, was legally untenable. The petitions were presented on April 9, 2025. The petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petitions to pursue alternative remedies, including filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority or a fresh writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand/penalty imposed on Petitioner No. 2, an individual, is legally untenable in light of the interpretation of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act, 2017, as decided in earlier judgments of this Court? The Petitioner argued that the penalty imposed on Petitioner No. 2, an individual, was unsustainable based on previous interpretations of Section 122(1-A) of the CGST Act by the High Court. They sought to withdraw the petitions to pursue appropriate legal remedies, including filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority or a fresh writ petition as an individual. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal of the petitions.

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:-

1.

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.

See plans and prices

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.