Rohan Tanna vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Rohan Tanna, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No. 120/JC/GST/2024-25 dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur. The order imposed personal penalties aggregating to ₹1,37,31,013/- upon the petitioner under Sections 122(1), 122(3), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017, and recommended prosecution under Section 132(1). The petitioner contended that the order was passed without due service of notice and in violation of natural justice. The respondents argued that notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act were sent, and multiple opportunities for personal hearing were provided, which the petitioner failed to avail. They further argued that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim of not being served with notice and not being provided an opportunity of hearing was unsubstantiated. Perusal of the record indicated that the petitioner himself had filed a copy of the notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, paragraph 20 of the impugned order clearly stated that several opportunities for personal hearing were granted to the petitioner on multiple dates, yet the petitioner did not appear before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, it could not be said that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided. The Court also noted that the impugned order was passed on 05.02.2025, and the petitioner filed the writ petition approximately 11 months later, instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalties or prosecution recommendation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No. 120/JC/GST/2024-25 dated 05.02.2025, imposing penalties and recommending prosecution against the petitioner, is liable to be quashed for alleged violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of due service of notice and opportunity of hearing, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, or should the petitioner avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondents? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper service of notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering it arbitrary and unsustainable. They sought quashing of the penalties and the recommendation for prosecution, along with the release of any coercive recovery measures. Respondents' Contention: The respondents asserted that notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act were duly served, and the petitioner was provided with multiple opportunities for personal hearing on various dates (07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 20.11.2024, and 04.12.2024), which the petitioner failed to utilize. They argued that the petitioner's failure to appear before the adjudicating authority meant that proper opportunity was provided. Furthermore, they contended that since a final order was passed, the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, making the writ petition not maintainable.