NON-APPEALABLE DECISIONS & ORDER.SECTION 121

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Non-appealable decisions and orders.

121. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any provisions of this Act, no appeal shall lie against any decision taken or order passed by an officer of central tax if such decision taken or order passed relates to any one or more of the following matters, namely:-

(a) XXXX

(b) XXXX

(c) an order sanctioning prosecution under this Act; or

(d) XXXX

In terms of Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, a person shall not be prosecuted for any offence except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. Meaning, prior order/sanction of the Commissioner is mandatory to prosecute any person for offences falling under Section 132(1) (a) to (l) of the Act. And in terms of Section 121, such sanction/order of the Commissioner is non-appealable under the CGST Act.

The issue here is:

In case, the sanction for prosecution ordered under Section 132(6) fails to establish the essential charge inscribed in the opening phrase of Section 132 namely, "whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the following offences namely", then the foundation of the prosecution trembles per se.

Is it not challengeable in the Trail Court, when such sanction for prosecution is non-appealable under the CGST Act?

Here I take the support of recent judgement dated 16/04/2025 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Amit Manilal Haria Vs. Commissioner of CGST reported in 2025 (4) TMI 1236 on the similar phrase relating to the levy of penalty under Section 122(1A) of the Act which is held in favour of the petitioners.

Experts to throw their deep thoughts to protect the innocent people.

AI Summary

Non-appealability of sanction orders does not bar judicial review when foundational elements of the offence are unestablished.
Orders sanctioning prosecution are non-appealable, but the sanction must establish that the accused "committed or caused to commit and retained the benefits" of the offence; absent such foundational material, the trial court may scrutinise and challenge enforcement steps, including arrest measures, and judicial review remains available where statutory or constitutional requirements are unmet.