M/S Rajkamal Builders Throgh Its Partner Bharat Kamal Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition could be raised before the appellate authority. Since there were disputed questions of fact where rival submissions existed, it was deemed appropriate to relegate the matter to the appellate authority. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal available under the law. Therefore, the Court denied indulgence in the writ petition and directed the petitioner to avail the legal remedy of appeal as per law. The petition was disposed of on this basis, without deciding the merits of the penalty or the alleged tempering with the record.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rajkamal Builders, through its partner Bharat Kamal Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petition challenged two orders dated January 30, 2025, and February 4, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-1, Gwalior. These orders imposed a penalty of Rs. 73,70,044/- on the petitioner firm. The petitioner alleged that the corrigendum dated February 4, 2025, which modified paragraph 9 of the impugned order, constituted tempering with the record. The respondents opposed the prayer, asserting that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the GST Act/Rules.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders dated January 30, 2025, and February 4, 2025, imposing a penalty of Rs. 73,70,044/- on the petitioner are illegal and liable to be quashed, considering the alleged tempering with the record through a corrigendum? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the corrigendum issued on February 4, 2025, which modified paragraph 9 of the order dated January 30, 2025, amounts to tempering with the record and renders the penalty illegal. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the GST Act/Rules and should avail that remedy. They denied the allegations made by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-
(i) That, Order Dated 30.01.2025 (ANNEXURE - P/1) & 04.02.2025 (ANNEXURE - P/2) passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby penalty of Rupees 73,70,044/- imposed upon the petitioner firm may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. (ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioner including the costs throughout may be granted.
It is submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby penalty of Rs.73,70,044/- imposed upon the petitioner firm, appears to be illegal 1 WP-15852-202
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.