W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 37

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 20.08.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 07.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 07.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010280552026

+ W.P.(C) 8829/2026, CM APPL. 41299/2026, CM APPL.

41300/2026

ROHIT GARG .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pradeep Singh Rawat, Mr.

Lalit Mohan Pant and Mr.

Abhinav Kalra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC along

with Mr. Iqbal Singh Bedi and

Mr.Latin Kumar Gaur, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010282812026

+ W.P.(C) 8892/2026, CM APPL. 41609/2026, CM APPL.

41610/2026

MANOJ BANSAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pradeep Singh Rawat, Mr.

Lalit Mohan Pant and Mr.

Abhinav Kalra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC along

with Mr. Iqbal Singh Bedi and

Mr. Latin Kumar Gaur, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010282722026

+ W.P.(C) 8893/2026, CM APPL. 41611/2026, CM APPL.

41612/2026

SAGAR GARG .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pradeep Singh Rawat, Mr.

Lalit Mohan Pant and Mr.

Abhinav Kalra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 37

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC along

with Mr. Iqbal Singh Bedi and

Mr. Latin Kumar Gaur, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010089362025

+ W.P.(C) 2338/2025, CM APPL. 11023/2025 and CM APPL.

46528/2026

RAHUL SOLANKI, DIRECTOR SRIVENKATESHWAR

TRADEX PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar and Mr. B.K.

Tripathi, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX DELHI WEST & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr.

Aryaman Singh Chouhan and

Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010095472025

+ W.P.(C) 2388/2025, CM APPL. 11278/2025 and CM APPL.

46532/2026

RAHUL SOLANKI, DIRECTOR SRI VENKATESHWAR

TRADEX PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. A. K. Babbar and Mr. B. K.

Tripathi, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX DELHI WEST & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along

with Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr.

Aryaman Singh Chouhan and

Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010236952026

+ W.P.(C) 7287/2026, CM APPL. 35664/2026 and CM APPL.

35665/2026

M/S SIWON ENTERPRISES PVT LTD THROUGH ITS

DIRECTOR SH VIKRANT SINGHAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 37

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Sanjana Akhilesh Singh,

GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010234282026

+ W.P.(C) 7288/2026, CM APPL. 35666/2026 & CM APPL.

35667/2026

SACHIN SINGHAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC along

with Ms. Shreya Lamba, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010237052026

+ W.P.(C) 7290/2026, CM APPL. 35670/2026 & CM APPL.

35671/2026

M/S MS SINGHAL TRADING INDIA PVT LTD THROUGH

ITS DIRECTOR SH VIKRANT SINGHAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 37

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC along

with Ms. Shreya Lamba, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010234352026

+ W.P.(C) 7292/2026, CM APPL. 35673/2026 & CM APPL.

35674/2026

SH. VIKRANT SINGHAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC along

with Ms. Shreya Lamba, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010302192026

+ W.P.(C) 9414/2026, CM APPL. 43857/2026 & CM APPL.

43858/2026

RAVI GARG .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain,

CGSC along with Mr. Nipun

Jain, GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010301092026

+ W.P.(C) 9428/2026, CM APPL. 43879/2026 & CM APPL.

43880/2026

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 37

M/S PM TRADING CO THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

NISHA JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC along

with Ms. Pragya Bharti, GP,

Mr. Kumar Gaurav and Mr.

SomnathBhattacharjee, Advs.

Mr. Kshitij Chhabra, SPC along

with Mr. Abhijeet Vikram

Singh, Adv.

# CNR No. DLHC010301072026

+ W.P.(C) 9429/2026, CM APPL. 43884/2026 & CM APPL.

43885/2026

M/S GSVM STEEL INDIA PVT LTD THROUGH ITS

DIRECTOR SH GAURAV JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mahendra Vikram Singh,

SPC.

Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC along

with Mr. Shivam Kumar, GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010301912026

+ W.P.(C) 9462/2026, CM APPL. 44094/2026 & CM APPL.

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 37

44095/2026

SH PRADEEP AGRAWAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

NirmalDixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC along

with Ms. Pragya Bharti, GP,

Mr. Kumar Gaurav and Mr.

Somnath Bhattacharjee, Advs.

Ms. Archana Sharma, SPC.

# CNR No. DLHC010302152026

+ W.P.(C) 9464/2026, CM APPL. 44097/2026 & CM APPL.

44098/2026

GOURAV JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Arushi Singh, SPC along

with Ms. Manviya Arun and

Ms. Amrisha Kumari, Advs.

Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC along

with Mr. Shivam Kumar, GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010302172026

+ W.P.(C) 9467/2026, CM APPL. 44100/2026 & CM APPL.

44101/2026

M/S HPSM STEEL INDIA PVT LTD THROUGH ITS

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 37

DIRECTOR SH GOURAV JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mahendra Vikram Singh,

SPC.

Mr. Amit Tyagi, SPC along

with Mr. Deepansh Sharma,

GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010301522026

+ W.P.(C) 9470/2026, CM APPL. 44106/2026 & CM APPL.

44107/2026

M/S SHRI JAIN TIMBER TRADERS THROUGH ITS

PROPRIETOR SH SAURAV JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC.

# CNR No. DLHC010301782026

+ W.P.(C) 9471/2026, CM APPL. 44109/2026 & CM APPL.

44110/2026

M/S MAYUR MATERIAL TRADING COMPANY

THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. SUNNY

AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 37

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Madhav Krishan Dubey,

SPC along with Mr.

Kamaldeep, GP.

Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC

along with Mr. Tenzing

Namgyal Bhutia and Mr.

Rithwik Narayanan, Advs.

Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC along

with Mr. Shivam Kumar, GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010302112026

+ W.P.(C) 9476/2026, CM APPL. 44126/2026 & CM APPL.

44127/2026

M/S SHRI JAIN TIMBER IRON AND STONE CO

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

SH GOURAV JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Anjanan Gosain, Adv.

Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC along

with Mr. Shivam Kumar, GP.

# CNR No. DLHC010307102026

+ W.P.(C) 9582/2026, CM APPL. 44652/2026 & CM APPL.

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 37

44653/2026

SUNNY AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr.

Nirmal Dixit, Mr. Aman Sinha,

Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr.

Anantvijay, Ms. Purna

Dewangan, Mr. Shashank

Singh, Ms. Shubra and Ms.

Priya, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar, SPC

along with Mr. Garvil Singh,

GP and Mr. Pradumn Gautam,

Adv.

Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC

along with Mr. Tenzing

Namgyal Bhutia and Mr.

Rithwik Narayanan, Advs.

# CNR No. DLHC010312232026

+ W.P.(C) 9831/2026, CM APPL. 45836/2026 & CM APPL.

45837/2026

KRISHAN KUMAR (NON -TAXABLE ENTITY) .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar and Mr. B. K.

Tripathi, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY

& ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC

along with Mr. Tenzing

Namgyal Bhutia and Mr.

Rithwik Narayanan, Advs.

Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC along

with Ms. Navruti Ojha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 37

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

1. The present batch of Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, arise out of proceedings under the Central

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the

‘CGST Act’] and involve overlapping questions concerning the

validity of proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act

1

, the

competence of the officer initiating such proceedings, the manner of

adjudication, the evidentiary material relied upon by the Department

and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section

107 of the CGST Act

2

.

2. W.P.(C.) No.7287/2026 is being treated as the lead matter. The

said petition, filed by M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., assails the

Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 and the consequential Form GST

DRC-07 and also challenges the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) dated

30.06.2025 on the ground that it was issued by an officer who,

according to the Petitioner, had not been assigned the relevant

functions under Section 122 at the time of issuance. The Petitioner

also raises grievances concerning the quantum of penalty,

consideration of its Reply, the evidentiary basis of the proceedings,

denial of cross-examination and the amended requirement of pre-

deposit for an appeal.

3. W.P.(C.) Nos.7287/2026, 7286/2026, 7290/2026, 7292/2026,

9414/2026, 9428/2026, 9429/2026, 9462/2026, 9464/2026,

1

Section 122

2

Section 107

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 37

9467/2026, 9470/2026, 9471/2026, 9476/2026, and 9582/2026

[hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘principal batch’] substantially

arise out of the same investigation and challenge the substantially

similar SCN dated 30.06.2025 and Order-in-Original dated

26.12.2025, with minor variations in the reliefs sought depending

upon the particular Petitioner. W.P.(C) Nos.8829/2026, 8892/2026,

and 8893/2026 also arise out of the substantially similar SCN dated

30.06.2025 and Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025. W.P.(C.)

No.9831/2026 arises from a separate SCN dated 24.09.2025 and

consequential Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2026, but raises several

common questions concerning Section 122, the alleged absence of

assignment of functions, retrospective application of Section 122(1A)

of the CGST Act

3

, evidentiary objections and the amended pre-deposit

requirement. W.P.(C.) Nos.2338/2025 and 2388/2025 also raise a

substantially similar jurisdictional challenge to proceedings under

Section 122, albeit arising from an earlier investigation and a different

period.

4. Since the principal batch arises out of the same investigation

and substantially rests upon common material and common questions

of law, and since the remaining connected petitions raise overlapping

questions which bear upon the maintainability and exercise of writ

jurisdiction, they have been heard together and are being disposed of

by this common judgment. The individual differences in the reliefs

claimed are noticed to the extent necessary.

3

Section 122(1A)

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 37

FACTUAL MATRIX:

5. The facts giving rise to the principal batch are, briefly, as

follows.

6. The investigation in the principal batch was initiated by the

Directorate General of GST Intelligence/concerned Anti-Evasion

authorities in relation to allegations concerning issuance of invoices

without actual supply of goods, wrongful availment or passing on of

Input Tax Credit and allied contraventions under the CGST Act. The

investigation commenced with search proceedings at premises

associated with persons/entities allegedly connected with the

transactions under investigation. The Department relies, inter alia,

upon statements recorded during investigation, electronic material and

handwritten records allegedly recovered during the course of search

proceedings.

7. In the course of the investigation, the Department identified a

number of entities and individuals whom it alleged were involved in

transactions relating to fraudulent Input Tax Credit. The Petitioners in

the principal batch dispute the allegations and contend that the

material relied upon by the Department does not establish, by

independent and transaction-wise evidence, their involvement in the

alleged transactions.

8. Insofar as the lead matter, W.P.(C.) No.7287/2026, is

concerned, the Petitioner, M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., was

engaged in the business of trading and supply of TMT bars and allied

iron and steel products. Its GST registration had been cancelled on the

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 13 of 37

application of the taxpayer with effect from 25.02.2023. According to

the Petitioner, the cancellation was not pursuant to any adverse

adjudication, investigation or penal action.

9. On 10.10.2024, officers of the Directorate General of GST

Intelligence conducted search proceedings at the residential premises

of the directors of the Petitioner Company. According to the

Petitioner, no incriminating material establishing any wrongful

activity on its part was recovered during the search. The Department

thereafter continued its investigation and recorded statements of

various persons and examined electronic data and other material.

10. During the course of the investigation, the Department also

proceeded against M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in connected

proceedings. The SCN dated 01.04.2025 was issued in relation to

transactions involving the Petitioner Company and arising from the

same investigation. According to the Petitioner, substantially similar

allegations had been examined in those proceedings and were

ultimately not sustained.

11. Thereafter, on 30.06.2025, the Additional Director, Directorate

General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad Regional Unit, issued SCN

No.48/2025-26 under Section 122 read with the corresponding

provisions of the SGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act for the

period FY 2018-19 to FY 2024-25. The SCN alleged, inter alia, that

the concerned Petitioners were involved in issuance of invoices

without actual supply of goods and proposed imposition of penalties

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 14 of 37

under various clauses of Section 122(1) of the CGST Act

4

and/or

Section 122(1A) and Section 122(3)(a) of the CGST Act. The

proceedings initiated pursuant to the said SCN are of substantial

magnitude, with the amounts proposed towards tax and penalty, in the

aggregate and across the various proceedings, running into hundreds

of crores of rupees.

12. In the case of the lead Petitioner, the SCN and Form GST DRC-

01 proposed liability of approximately Rs.45,55,42,649/-. The

allegations were substantially founded upon statements of third parties

and electronic material and were premised upon alleged transactions

involving Input Tax Credit. The Petitioner submitted a detailed Reply,

disputed the allegations, relied upon invoices, e-way bills,

transportation records and other material, and specifically sought

cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon by

the Department.

13. Similar proceedings were undertaken against the other

Petitioners in the principal batch. The Petitioners have, in varying

terms, disputed the genuineness and evidentiary value of the material

relied upon by the Department, contending that the proceedings were

based upon material allegedly recovered from third parties and that

there was no independent transaction-wise material establishing their

respective involvement.

14. The Petitioners also raised objections during adjudication

regarding the procedure followed by the Department. Certain

4

Section 122(1)

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 15 of 37

Petitioners contend that relied-upon documents were not supplied

despite requests. Some contend that they were not afforded an

effective opportunity of personal hearing. Some allege that the

hearings stated to have been conducted were not effectively held and

some contend that statements relied upon against them were obtained

in circumstances which rendered their voluntariness and evidentiary

value doubtful.

15. Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 came to be passed in the

respective proceedings. The amounts involved in the adjudication

proceedings are substantial, with the tax and penalty liabilities

recorded in the respective Orders-in-Original running into hundreds of

crores of rupees. In the lead matter, the adjudicating authority imposed

penalties under various clauses of Section 122(1), resulting in a

liability substantially exceeding the amount reflected in the

SCN/DRC-01. In the case of the lead Petitioner, the consequential

DRC-07 reflected an aggregate liability of approximately

Rs.2,27,72,13,235/-.

16. The Petitioners contend that the escalation in liability resulted

from repeated imposition or multiplication of penalties under several

clauses of Section 122(1), without independent transaction-wise

findings establishing the ingredients of each alleged contravention.

According to them, the adjudicating authorities thereby travelled

beyond the scope of the SCNs.

17. The Petitioners further rely upon proceedings arising out of the

same investigation in which, according to them, transactions involving

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 16 of 37

certain of the Petitioners were accepted as genuine and the proposed

demand was dropped after consideration of invoices, e-way bills,

transportation records and other supporting material. It is contended

that contradictory findings by different adjudicating authorities arising

out of the same investigation demonstrate non-application of mind and

arbitrariness.

18. A further common issue arises from the amendment to Section

107(6) of the CGST Act

5

. Notification No.16/2025-Central Tax dated

17.09.2025 brought into force, with effect from 01.10.2025, an

amended requirement relating to pre-deposit in cases where the order

involves imposition of penalty alone. The Petitioners contend that the

proceedings against them had commenced before the amendment and

that the subsequently introduced pre-deposit requirement cannot be

applied to them. They also contend, in some cases, that the financial

burden of such pre-deposit renders the statutory appellate remedy

illusory.

19. W.P.(C.) Nos.2338/2025 and 2388/2025 raise a similar issue

concerning the competence to initiate proceedings under Section 122.

The Petitioner therein, Mr. Rahul Solanki, was a director of M/s

Srivenkateshwar Tradex Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant period. A SCN

dated 17.07.2020 was issued under Sections 74, 76 and 122(1) of the

CGST/SGST/IGST enactments in respect of the period 01.07.2017 to

31.03.2019, proposing penalty against the Petitioner in his individual

capacity. The Petitioner contends that Section 122(1) does not apply

to him and that the SCN impermissibly clubbed two financial years.

5

Section 107(6)

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 17 of 37

20. W.P.(C.) Nos.8892/2026, 8893/2026 and 8829/2026,

substantially assail the same Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 and

raise substantially similar grounds concerning the competence of the

officer issuing the SCN, denial of personal hearing, the alleged

mechanical imposition of multiple penalties, the evidentiary basis of

the proceedings and the amended pre-deposit requirement.

21. W.P.(C.) No.9831/2026 requires separate factual notice. The

said petition has been filed by Krishan Kumar, who asserts that he is

an individual and a non-taxable entity and is not a registered person

under the CGST/SGST enactments. The challenge therein is directed

against SCN dated 24.09.2025 and the consequential Order-in-

Original dated 24.03.2026 concerning penalty under Section 122(1A).

22. By the SCN dated 24.09.2025, penalty of Rs.68,62,24,963/- was

proposed in respect of alleged Input Tax Credit availed and a further

penalty of Rs.94,84,38,536/- was proposed in respect of alleged Input

Tax Credit passed on through five firms alleged to have been created

by the Petitioner. The SCN invoked the extended period under Section

74(1) of the CGST Act.

23. The Petitioner submitted a detailed Reply and thereafter

participated in the adjudication proceedings. He disputed the statement

allegedly recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, contending that

the statement was not voluntary and had been obtained under duress.

The Petitioner also contended that copies of relied-upon documents

had not been supplied despite request and that his request for cross-

examination of third parties whose statements or evidence were relied

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 18 of 37

upon had not been acceded to.

24. The adjudicating authority thereafter passed the Order-in-

Original dated 24.03.2026 imposing penalty of Rs.68,62,24,963/- as

equivalent to the alleged ITC availed and a further penalty of

Rs.94,84,38,536/- as equivalent to the alleged ITC passed on,

aggregating to approximately Rs.1,63,46,63,499/-. The order also

directed initiation of prosecution under Section 132(1) of the CGST

Act, subject to approval of the competent authority, and a

consequential DRC-07 was issued.

25. The Petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.9831/2026 also challenges the

applicability of Section 122(1A) to transactions pertaining to the

period prior to its insertion with effect from 01.01.2021, invokes

Article 20(1) of the Constitution, disputes his status as a taxable

person and challenges the quantification of penalty. He further

challenges the amendment to Section 107(6) and seeks, in the

alternative, waiver of the pre-deposit on the ground of financial

incapacity.

26. A common feature of the principal batch is thus that the

Petitioners challenge Orders-in-Original passed pursuant to

adjudication proceedings and seek to invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court notwithstanding the appellate remedy

provided under Section 107.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

27. Heard learned senior counsel representing the Petitioners in the

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 19 of 37

principal batch of Writ Petitions, learned counsel representing the

Petitioners in the connected Writ Petitions, and also the learned

counsels representing the Respondents at considerable length. With

their able assistance, perused the paperbooks.

28. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioners in the

principal batch and the learned counsel representing the Petitioners in

the connected Writ Petitions have advanced submissions substantially

on the same lines. Their principal contentions may be summarised as

under:

i. The SCNs issued under Section 122 are without

jurisdiction, since, on the dates of their issuance, the concerned

officers had not been assigned the relevant functions under

Section 122. Reliance is placed upon Sections 2(91) and 5s of

the CGST Act and Circular No.254/11/2025-GST dated

27.10.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Circular dated

27.10.2025’]. It is contended that a subsequent assignment of

functions cannot retrospectively validate a SCN which was void

at inception.

ii. The impugned Orders-in-Original are vitiated by

violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that

although detailed Replies and documentary material were

submitted, the same were either not considered or were rejected

without cogent reasons. In certain cases, relied-upon documents

were not supplied and effective opportunity of personal hearing

was either not granted or was not meaningfully afforded.

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 20 of 37

iii. The adjudication substantially relies upon statements of

third parties, electronic data and handwritten records. Despite

specific requests, the Petitioners were denied an opportunity to

cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon. The

electronic material was also not accompanied by the requisite

safeguards and certification. Such untested material, according

to the Petitioners, could not form the basis of the penal liability

imposed upon them.

iv. The Respondents have imposed penalties under multiple

clauses of Section 122(1) in respect of the same alleged

conduct, thereby multiplying the liability. It is contended that

the final liability, in certain cases, is substantially higher than

the amount proposed in the SCN/DRC-01 and that the

adjudication has consequently travelled beyond the scope of the

SCN, causing serious prejudice to the Petitioners.

v. The SCNs impermissibly club several financial years and

numerous transactions and entities into a single composite

proceeding. According to the Petitioners, the statutory scheme

requires determination of liability with reference to the relevant

tax period and the specific acts attributable to the particular

noticee. Mechanical aggregation of transactions spread over

several years reflects non-application of mind.

vi. The Department has, in proceedings arising out of the

same investigation, adopted contradictory stands with regard to

the same transactions. Transactions accepted as genuine in one

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 21 of 37

adjudication have, according to the Petitioners, been treated as

bogus in another, without any distinguishing material being

disclosed. Such inconsistent treatment is contended to be

arbitrary and renders the impugned adjudication unsustainable.

vii. Insofar as Section 122(1A)is invoked, it is contended that

the provision cannot be retrospectively applied to transactions

preceding its insertion with effect from 01.01.2021. Reliance is

placed upon Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and the

judgment in Amit Manilal Haria & Ors. v. Joint

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise& Ors.

6

.

viii. Section 122(1A), according to the Petitioners, has

reference to Section 122(1), which operates in relation to a

taxable person. It is contended that certain Petitioners are

neither registered nor otherwise liable to be registered and,

therefore, do not fall within the statutory expression ‘taxable

person’.

ix. The amended proviso to Section 107(6), brought into

force with effect from 01.10.2025 by Notification No.16/2025-

Central Tax dated 17.09.2025, cannot be applied to proceedings

initiated prior thereto. It is contended that the right of appeal is

a substantive and vested right and is governed by the law

prevailing when the lis commenced. Reliance is placed upon

Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh

& Ors.

7

, and Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner

6

W.P. No.5001/2025 (Bom)

7

1953 SCC OnLine SC 33

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 22 of 37

(Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr

8

.

x. The requirement of pre-deposit, particularly where the

penalty amounts are substantial, renders the statutory appellate

remedy oppressive and illusory for Petitioners who lack the

financial capacity to make such deposit. It is, therefore,

contended that, in view of the alleged jurisdictional defects and

violation of the principles of natural justice, the present cases

fall within the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative

remedy.

xi. Insofar as W.P.(C.) No.9831/2026 is concerned, learned

counsel representing the Petitioner has, in addition, contended

that the two alternatives contemplated under Section 122(1A)

cannot simultaneously furnish the basis for imposition of

separate penalties and that the Petitioner could not be subjected

to two separate penalties equivalent to the Input Tax Credit

allegedly availed and the Input Tax Credit allegedly passed on.

xii. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner in

W.P.(C.) No.9831/2026 that the statement under Section 70 of

the CGST Act was allegedly recorded without following the

safeguards referred to in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh

& Ors

9

. It is also contended that the corrigendum dated

19.11.2025 was neither supplied to the Petitioner nor dealt with

in the impugned Order-in-Original and that the consequential

adjudication is, therefore, vitiated by breach of the principles of

8

2026:DHC:6124-DB

9

SLP(Crl.) No.3543/2020

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 23 of 37

natural justice.

29. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondents have

opposed the maintainability of the present batch of Writ Petitions as

well as the merits of the challenges raised therein. Their submissions,

insofar as relevant for the present adjudication, may be summarised as

under:

i. The challenge to the applicability of Section 122(1) is

misconceived. The Respondents contend that the Petitioners

cannot avoid penal liability merely by asserting that they were

not the taxable persons or that they derived no personal benefit.

According to the Respondents, the material collected during

investigation, including statements, documentary material and

other corroborative evidence, attributes to the concerned

Petitioners an active role in facilitating issuance of invoices

without actual supply of goods and consequent fraudulent

availment or passing on of Input Tax Credit.

ii. Insofar as Section 122(1A) is concerned, the Respondents

rely upon its statutory language and Section 137 of the CGST

Act to contend that a person who facilitates or is responsible for

the relevant transactions may be subjected to penalty

notwithstanding that the underlying taxable person is the

concerned company.

iii. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment in Arun

Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 24 of 37

& Ors.

10

and connected matters. It is pointed out that the

question concerning the applicability of Section 122(1)to a

person who is not a ‘taxable person’ is presently pending before

the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India

& Ors.

11

.

iv. On the challenge to the competence of the officer issuing

the SCNs under Section 122, the Respondents relied upon the

decision of this Court in Devender Singh v. Additional

Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West

12

. It has been held that

insofar as the Circular dated 27.10.2025appointing the proper

officer is concerned, the SCN has been issued by the Additional

Commissioner, who cannot be held to be not a proper officer as

the said Additional Commissioner is duly empowered under the

CGST Act to issue SCNs under Section 122.

v. Reliance is also placed upon the subsequent decision of

this Court in Sunil Chauhan, Proprietor of Shree Chem India

v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North &

Ors.

13

. It is contended, on the strength of the reasoning adopted

therein, that the proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the

CGST Act and the consequential penalty contemplated under

Section 122 are required to be read together and that a separate

adjudication under Section 122 is not contemplated where the

penalty arises from the very contravention adjudicated under

10

2026:DHC:6609-DB

11

SLP(C) No.18178/2025

12

2025:DHC:9881-DB

13

2026:DHC:5477-DB

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 25 of 37

Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act. In this regard, reliance is

placed upon Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

14

.

It is submitted that the challenge to the competence of the

officer and the interpretation of the statutory framework

governing assignment of functions do not disclose a patent

jurisdictional defect warranting interference under Article 226.

The Respondents also rely upon the decision of the Telangana

High Court in Alokadei Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of

Central Tax

15

. It is, however, noted that the judgment in

Patanjali Ayurved (supra) is presently under challenge before

the Supreme Court.

vi. Insofar as the amended requirement of pre-deposit under

Section 107(6) is concerned, learned counsel representing the

Respondents, at the time of hearing, did not dispute the

applicability of the judgment of this Court in Gaurav Jain &

Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone &

Anr.

16

, wherein the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) was

held not to govern an appeal arising from adjudicatory

proceedings initiated through a SCN issued prior to 01.10.2025.

vii. It is, however, submitted that the Petitioners should be

relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 107,

particularly since several of the remaining challenges involve

disputed questions of fact, including the role attributed to the

individual Petitioners, the evidentiary value of statements and

14

[2025] 99 GSTL7 (Allahabad)

15

W.P. No.4426/2026

16

2026:DHC:6124-DB

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 26 of 37

other material, the genuineness of the transactions and the

alleged contraventions. According to the Respondents, such

questions are appropriately examined by the appellate authority,

which is competent to consider questions both of fact and law.

Reliance was accordingly placed upon the principle that the

availability of an efficacious statutory remedy assumes

particular significance in matters arising under fiscal

enactments.

30. No other submissions have been made by the learned senior

counsel and learned counsel representing the respective parties.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

31. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel representing the parties and perused the material placed on

record. At the outset, it is appropriate to deal with the issue concerning

the pre-deposit contemplated under Section 107(6), as amended with

effect from 01.10.2025.

32. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the

Respondents did not dispute the applicability of the judgment of this

Court in Gaurav Jain(supra). In the said judgment, this Court has

held that the substituted proviso to Section 107(6), which came into

force with effect from 01.10.2025, does not govern an Appeal arising

out of adjudicatory proceedings initiated by a SCN issued prior to that

date. The appellate remedy, including the conditions governing its

exercise, is accordingly governed by the law applicable on the date on

which the adjudicatory proceedings commenced.

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 27 of 37

33. In the present batch, the SCNs in the principal batch, along with

W.P. Nos.8829/2026, 8892/2026, 8893/2026, were issued on

30.06.2025, the SCN in W.P.(C.) No.9831/2026 was issued on

24.09.2025, and the proceedings in W.P.(C.) Nos.2338/2025 and

2388/2025 arise from a SCN dated 17.07.2020. Thus, all the

proceedings in the present batch were initiated prior to 01.10.2025.

Consequently, in terms of Gaurav Jain(supra), the substituted proviso

to Section 107(6) would have no application to the Appeals arising

from the impugned Orders-in-Original.

34. This Court next considers the challenge founded upon Section

122(1). The contention of the Petitioners is that Section 122(1)

operates against a ‘taxable person’ and, therefore, a person who is

neither registered nor otherwise liable to be registered cannot be

subjected to penalty thereunder merely on the allegation that such

person was associated with, or derived benefit from, the transactions

of a taxable person.

35. The controversy is not merely academic. Section 122(1)itself

predicates the liability upon the status of the person proceeded against

as a ‘taxable person’, whereas Section 122(1A), which is separately

worded, operates upon ‘any person’ in the circumstances specified

therein. The distinction in the statutory language cannot be ignored. At

the same time, whether a particular Petitioner answers the statutory

description, whether such person was liable to registration, and the

precise role attributed to such Petitioner in the transactions are matters

which, in several of the present petitions, are intertwined with the

factual material collected during investigation.

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 28 of 37

36. The issue has also been directly raised before the Supreme

Court in Mukesh Kumar Garg (supra), in which leave has been

granted. More recently, in Arun Kumar Jain(supra), this Court,

noticing the pendency of the said issue before the Supreme Court,

declined to express an opinion on the applicability of Section 122(1)

to a person who is not a ‘taxable person’ and relegated the Petitioners

to the statutory appellate remedy, leaving the issue open to be

governed by the decision ultimately rendered by the Supreme Court.

This Court finds no reason to adopt a different course in the present

batch. The question of law is, therefore, left open and shall be

governed by the decision of the Supreme Court.

37. This Court now turns to the principal challenge concerning the

competence of the officer who issued the SCNs under Section 122.

Since this contention goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the

authority initiating the proceedings, it is necessary to notice the

statutory scheme before examining the decisions relied upon by the

parties.

38. Section 2(91) of the CGST Act defines ‘proper officer’ as

follows:

“(91) „proper officer‟, in relation to any function to be performed

under this Act, means the Commissioner or the officer of the

central tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in

the Board.”

39. Section 3 of the CGST Act provides for the classes of officers

for the purposes of the Act and includes the Principal Chief

Commissioners, Chief Commissioners, Principal Commissioners,

Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Joint Commissioners,

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 29 of 37

Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and such other class

of officers as may be appointed. Section 5, insofar as relevant,

provides:

“5. Powers of officers.—(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations

as the Board may impose, an officer of central tax may exercise the

powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under

this Act.

(2) An officer of central tax may exercise the powers and discharge

the duties conferred or imposed under this Act on any other officer of

central tax who is subordinate to him.

(3) The Commissioner may, subject to such conditions and limitations

as may be specified in this behalf by him, delegate his powers to any

other officer who is subordinate to him.”

40. The statutory scheme thus makes a distinction between the

designation or rank of an officer and the assignment of a particular

statutory function. The expression ‘proper officer’ in Section 2(91) is

function-specific. Merely being an officer of central tax, therefore,

does not, by itself, answer the question whether that officer is the

proper officer for every function under the Act. At the same time, the

assignment of functions may be effected through the statutory and

administrative instruments issued by the Board in exercise of the

powers under Sections 3 and 5.

41. In this regard, Notification No.14/2017-Central Tax dated

01.07.2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Notification No.14’] assumes

significance. The said notification, issued in exercise of powers under

Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act and Section 3 of the IGST Act,

appointed officers in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence,

Directorate General of GST and Directorate General of Audit as

central tax officers and invested them with all the powers under the

CGST and IGST Acts and the Rules made thereunder, throughout

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 30 of 37

India, as were exercisable by central tax officers of the corresponding

rank. Under the said notification, an Additional Director, Directorate

General of GST Intelligence, was placed at par with an Additional

Commissioner for the purposes of the powers vested under the CGST

and IGST enactments.

42. The Respondents accordingly contend that an Additional

Director of DGGI, being invested with the powers of an Additional

Commissioner under Notification No.14, could not be regarded as

lacking statutory authority merely because he was functioning in the

Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The decision of this Court in

Devender Singh (supra), is relied upon in support of the proposition

that an Additional Commissioner is duly empowered to issue SCNs

under Section 122 and cannot be treated as not being a proper officer

merely by reference to the subsequent Circular dated 27.10.2025.

43. At this stage, it is also necessary to notice Notification

No.02/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 [hereinafter referred to as

‘Notification No.02’], whereby the Board assigned specified functions

under the CGST Act to various classes of central tax officers. The said

notification, therefore, has a bearing on the question whether the

power to perform the particular function contemplated under Section

122 had, at the relevant point of time, been specifically assigned to the

officer concerned. The Petitioners rely upon the absence of such

specific assignment, whereas the Respondents contend that the

authority flowing from Notification No.14, read with the statutory

scheme and the notifications/instructions issued thereunder, was

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 31 of 37

sufficient to clothe the concerned officer with the requisite

competence.

44. The Petitioners, however, place reliance upon Circular dated

27.10.2025. The said Circular, issued by the Board in exercise of

powers under Section 2(91) read with Section 5 of the CGST Act,

specifically assigns officers as proper officers for functions under

Section 122 and prescribes monetary limits for such functions. The

Circular further records that no proper officer had earlier been

assigned in respect of Section 122. The Petitioners contend that the

Circular consequently cannot be treated as a mere clarification of an

already existing assignment and that a subsequent assignment cannot

retrospectively validate a SCN which was issued before 27.10.2025.

45. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the two

notifications, this Court is unable to hold, at this stage, that in the

absence of a specific assignment under Section 2(91), an officer of

central tax otherwise empowered under Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST

Act is, as a matter of law, denuded of authority to initiate proceedings

in respect of a contravention for which the Act confers jurisdiction

upon an officer of the requisite rank. Notification No.14 specifically

invests the officers of DGGI with the powers exercisable by central

tax officers of the corresponding rank, while Notification No.02

assigns various functions under the Act to the specified classes of

officers. The question whether these provisions, read together,

constitute sufficient conferment of authority in respect of the

proceedings in question, therefore, cannot be answered merely on the

basis of the subsequent Circular dated 27.10.2025.

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 32 of 37

46. Further, the Circular dated 27.10.2025 is issued in view of the

amendment in the CGST Act vide the Finance Act, 2024, dated

16.08.2024, which was enforced on 01.11.2024, whereby various

provisions of the CGST Act were amended, including Section 74A.

Hence, at the highest, the said Circular may therefore be understood as

clarificatory of the manner in which the functions under Section 122

are to be exercised and the officers who are to perform such functions.

It cannot, however, be construed so as to render nugatory or override

the statutory notifications already issued in exercise of the powers

conferred by the CGST Act. The question, therefore, is not whether

the said Circular is to be given effect, but the extent to which the said

Circular bears upon, or clarifies, the authority already flowing from

the statutory provisions and the notifications then in force. The effect

of the Circular has to be considered in the context of the statutory

scheme and the notifications already in force, including Notification

Nos.02and 14.

47. Moreover, the view that the competence of the officer cannot be

examined in isolation from the substantive adjudication finds support

from the decisions of this Court in Sunil Chauhan (supra) and of the

Telangana High Court in Alokadei Holdings (supra), as also the

judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Patanjali Ayurved (supra).

The said decisions proceed, inter alia, on the basis that where the very

contravention is adjudicated under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act,

the consequential penalty contemplated under Section 122 forms part

of the same adjudicatory exercise and does not necessarily require a

separate adjudication by an independently assigned officer under

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 33 of 37

Section 122. While the judgment in Patanjali Ayurved (supra) is

stated to be under challenge before the Supreme Court, the decisions

in Sunil Chauhan (supra) and Alokadei Holdings (supra) have not

been shown to have been interfered with.

48. In these circumstances, the objection as to the competence of

the officer cannot, in the facts of the present batch, be characterised as

a case of patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question

involves the construction of the statutory scheme, the effect of

Notification Nos.02 and 14, the subsequent Circular dated 27.10.2025

and, in the appropriate cases, the interrelationship between the

proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act and the

consequential penalties under Section 122. These are matters which

can be urged before and examined by the statutory Appellate

Authority under Section 107, which is competent to consider both

questions of fact and law. The Petitioners would, therefore, be at

liberty to raise the said jurisdictional objection in the statutory

Appeals, but the existence of this objection, by itself, does not furnish

sufficient ground for this Court to bypass the efficacious appellate

remedy.

49. There is an additional reason why this Court would be slow to

exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the present batch. The

principal batch arises from a common investigation involving 629

firms/entities, and the Order-in-Original has proceeded against the

said entities on the basis of a common body of material. The aggregate

tax and penalty liability arising from the proceedings runs into

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 34 of 37

hundreds of crores of rupees. The lead Petitioner alone has been

visited with a consequential liability reflected in DRC-07 of

approximately Rs.2,27,72,13,235/-. The adjudication involves a large

volume of documentary, electronic and statement-based material,

besides questions concerning the individual role of different

Petitioners and the genuineness of particular transactions.

50. The Petitioners have raised several other grounds concerning

the consideration of their Replies, supply of relied-upon documents,

opportunity of personal hearing, denial of cross-examination,

evidentiary value of statements and electronic material, multiplication

of penalties under different clauses of Section 122(1), clubbing of

different financial years and transactions, and alleged inconsistency in

findings in proceedings arising from the same investigation. These

grounds cannot be effectively examined without a detailed

consideration of the underlying record and the respective factual

position of each noticee.

51. It deserves notice that the Impugned Orders are appealable

under Section 107, which provides a complete and efficacious remedy

enabling the Appellate Authority to examine questions of fact and law

and the correctness and legality of the adjudication. Ordinarily,

therefore, where such a statutory remedy is available, this Court would

exercise restraint in entertaining a challenge to the original

adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.

52. The availability of an alternative remedy, however, is not an

absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. As held by the

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 35 of 37

Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v.

Commercial Steel Limited

17

, the writ jurisdiction may nevertheless be

exercised in exceptional cases involving breach of fundamental rights,

violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or

challenge to the vires of a statute or delegated legislation. However,

the mere assertion of any such ground does not, by itself, warrant

bypassing the statutory remedy. The Court must examine whether the

facts of the case actually disclose circumstances justifying interference

under Article 226.

53. In the facts and circumstances of the present batch, therefore,

this Court is not persuaded that any of the grounds urged by the

Petitioners warrants exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution. The issues raised, including those

concerning the evidentiary material, the role of the respective

Petitioners, the imposition and quantification of penalties and the

competence of the authorities, are capable of examination by the

statutory Appellate Authority. The remedy under Section 107 cannot,

in the present circumstances, be said to have been rendered illusory,

particularly in view of the position clarified in Gaurav Jain(supra)

with regard to the applicable pre-deposit. The Petitioners must,

therefore, avail the statutory remedy before seeking recourse to the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

54. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the present

batch does not warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution. The question concerning the

17

(2022) 16 SCC 447

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 36 of 37

applicability of Section 122(1) to a person who is not a ‘taxable

person’ is left open, as the said issue is presently pending

consideration before the Supreme Court. Insofar as the competence of

the officer to initiate proceedings under Section 122 is concerned, this

Court has examined the statutory scheme and the relevant notifications

and is of the view that the objection raised does not disclose a patent

or self-evident absence of jurisdiction warranting interference in writ

jurisdiction. The Petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to urge the

said objection before the Appellate Authority, along with their other

grounds, including the effect of the subsequent Circular dated

27.10.2025 and the applicability of the principles laid down in Sunil

Chauhan (supra), Alokadei Holdings (supra) and Patanjali Ayurved

(supra). The ultimate determination of these issues is left to the

statutory Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

CONCLUSION:

55. Consequently, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of on the

ground of availability of the statutory remedy under Section 107. The

Petitioners shall be at liberty to avail the said remedy in accordance

with law. The Appellate Authority shall examine all grounds raised by

the Petitioners, including the questions left open in the present

judgment, on their own merits and uninfluenced by any observations

made herein.

56. Insofar as the requirement of pre-deposit is concerned, the

Appeals arising from the SCNs issued prior to 01.10.2025 shall be

governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the respective dates of

W.P.(C) 8829/2026 & connected matters Page 37 of 37

issuance of the SCNs, in terms of Gaurav Jain(supra). The Appeals

shall not be rejected by applying the substituted proviso to Section

107(6) merely because the Orders-in-Original were passed after

01.10.2025.

57. The Petitioners may seek exclusion of the period during which

the present Writ Petitions remained pending before this Court for the

purposes of limitation. If such a request is made, the same shall be

considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

58. Accordingly, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of in the

aforesaid terms. All pending applications shall stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

SEPTEMBER 07, 2026

sp/shah