Facts of the Case

Kapil Chugh, the petitioner, approached the Allahabad High Court by way of WRIT TAX No. 944 of 2023 challenging an Order-in-Original dated 26.05.2023 passed under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Agra, imposing a penalty on the petitioner. During the hearing before a Division Bench, it emerged that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal against the said Order-in-Original, and that this remedy had, in fact, already been availed by the petitioner. The writ petition was heard on 02.11.2023 by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. and Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a penalty order under Section 122 of the CGST Act could be entertained when the petitioner had already availed the alternative statutory appellate remedy against the same order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Counsel for the petitioner pressed the writ petition challenging the correctness of the penalty imposed under Section 122 of the CGST Act by the Order-in-Original dated 26.05.2023.
  • No specific ground urged in the writ petition is recorded beyond the challenge to the penalty order itself, since the hearing was disposed of at the threshold once it emerged that a statutory appeal had already been filed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the petitioner already had, and had exercised, the remedy of appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original, making it inappropriate for the writ court to simultaneously entertain a parallel challenge.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that, undisputedly, the petitioner had a remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.05.2023 passed under Section 122 of the CGST Act, and that this remedy had already been availed.
  • Since the statutory appeal had already been filed, the Court held that no dual remedy could be offered by entertaining the writ petition alongside the pending appeal.
  • The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability (and actual availment) of statutory remedy, with liberty left open to the petitioner to press the statutory appeal.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer has already invoked the statutory appellate remedy against a GST penalty order, courts will decline to simultaneously entertain a writ petition against the same order, to avoid parallel or dual remedies.
  • The dismissal on this ground does not touch the merits of the penalty imposed under Section 122; the petitioner remains free to argue those merits before the appellate authority.
  • Taxpayers should elect a single forum — either statutory appeal or writ — rather than pursue both simultaneously against the same order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 – prescribes penalties for specified offences under GST, including the penalty impugned in this case.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India – invoked for the writ petition, held inappropriate given the availed statutory remedy.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was dismissed on the threshold ground of an already-availed statutory remedy, without any examination of the merits of the Section 122 penalty; the outcome favours the Department procedurally, though the petitioner's substantive challenge remains open before the appellate authority.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: Allahabad High Court (Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:210304-DB)
  • Case No.: WRIT TAX No. 944 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. and Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.
  • Decision Date: 02.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed (statutory remedy available)

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.