TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esides penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e) of the CGST Act. Then Petitioner also assails the Show Cause Notice No. DGGI/DZU/2025-2026 dated 17.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned SCN'). 2. The controversy in the present Writ Petition lies within a narrow compass. During the course of hearing, the challenge to the Impugned Order was confined principally to the alleged violation of Sections 74(9) and 75(4) of the CGST Act, the reliance placed upon the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and the competence of the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North (hereinafter referred to as 'Adjudicating Authority'), to impose the penalties contained in the Impugned Order. 3. Though the Impugned Order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India principally on the ground that the adjudication proceedings stand vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice and excess of jurisdiction. FACTUAL MATRIX: 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, the releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority has merely observed that the reply is "neither in consonance to the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice nor do they seem to validate their stance" without considering or dealing with the submissions raised therein. ii. The mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act has been violated. Although the Impugned Order records that personal hearings were fixed on 09.10.2025, 14.10.2025 and 06.11.2025, no notice intimating the aforesaid dates was ever served upon the Petitioner. iii. The statement recorded from the Petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act was not voluntary and was obtained under coercion. It is contended that the said statement could not have been relied upon while adjudicating the proceedings. iv. The allegations in the Impugned SCN are substantially founded upon statements and material pertaining to third parties. Despite a specific request made in the reply to the Impugned SCN, the Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the said persons. v. Lastly, the Adjudicating Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the penalties under the Impugned Order. The levy of penalties,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere invocation of one of the aforesaid grounds in the pleadings is not by itself sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy. The Court is required to independently examine whether a prima facie case falling within any of the recognised exceptions has been made out so as to justify the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 17. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court principally on the grounds that the adjudication proceedings are vitiated by non-compliance with Sections 74(9) and 75(4) of the CGST Act, denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements have been relied upon, reliance upon a statement allegedly recorded under coercion under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and excess of jurisdiction in the matter of imposition of penalty. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether any of the aforesaid contentions disclose a case falling within the recognised exceptions warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. The first contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Impugned Order is vitiated on account of non-compliance with Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. It is contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordance with the modes prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act, and whether the Petitioner had knowledge thereof, are all matters requiring examination of the record maintained by the Department. Such factual issues are best left to be examined by the appellate authority constituted under the statute. It cannot, therefore, be said, at this stage, that there exists a patent or self-evident violation of the principles of natural justice so as to justify bypassing the statutory remedy. 23. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner has also assailed the reliance placed upon the statement recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act by contending that the same was obtained under coercion and has subsequently been retracted. It has further been urged that the request for cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon has been illegally declined. 24. These submissions again pertain to the evidentiary appreciation undertaken by the Adjudicating Authority. The voluntariness of the statement recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the effect of its subsequent retraction, the evidentiary value to be attached thereto, and the necessity or otherwise of p....