TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondents Through: Mr. Akash Verma, SSC-CBIC with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Adv. JUDGMENT (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. The present batch of three (03) Writ Petitions raising identical issues and emanating from a common order dated 25.03.2026 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Common Order'], shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2. Since the present Writ Petitions arise out of the Impugned Common Order, the facts are being noticed from W.P.(C) 14095/2026 captioned Siya Seth, Proprietor-Spherion Solutions v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST Delhi North & Ors. 3. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the Petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me effectively restricts and impairs the statutory remedy of appeal available to a taxpayer against an order. D. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/directions for quashing the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1, issued on 27.03.2026, imposing an unreasonable penalty upon the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 51,35,040/-, under Section 122(1)(vii) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 in a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, mechanical manner, in violation of principles of natural justice and in complete disregard of reasonableness and proportionality in the adjudication proceedings. E. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive Noticees were examined in the adjudication proceedings. 7. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that the present Writ Petitions deserve consideration, principally, on the following grounds: i. that the Respondents have violated the principles of natural justice; ii. that no period of limitation has been prescribed under Section 127 of the CGST Act; iii. that the proceedings were not initiated by the Proper Officer; and iv. that once the alleged mastermind has been identified, the liability should be confined to such person under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act and the Petitioners, at the highest, would fall within the category of persons contemplated under Section 122(3) of the CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onable period, in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation, is therefore also capable of examination by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the complete record. 12. The remaining contentions raised by learned counsel representing the Petitioners, namely, as to whether the proceedings were initiated by the Proper Officer and whether, in the facts of the present case, the Petitioners' liability is to be examined under Section 122(1), Section 122(1A) or Section 122(3) of the CGST Act, also involve an examination of the statutory provisions in the context of the factual findings recorded in the Impugned Common Order. These issues can equally be urged before and examined by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its appellate juri....