GAHC010022412026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/630/2026 JAI KUMAR SHYAMSUKHA PROPRIETOR OF M/S JAI SHREE MARKETING, SON OF LATE LUNKARAN SHYAMSUKHA, RESIDENT OF MISSION ROAD, BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FINANCE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.

2:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI.

3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR. N N DUTTA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR P K BORA,B SARMA,MR. A. KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

06.02.2026 Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Chetia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 3; Ms. J Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand cum show cause notice dated

25.06.2025 as well as the order-in-original dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Jurisdictional Officer imposing penalty on the writ petitioner under section

122(1A).

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made against the writ petitioner is that he had facilitated other entities of falsifying the benefits under the GST Act. Under such circumstances, the show cause notices were issued, which were replied to and finally by the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 the demand raised by the show cause notice stood confirm.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of section 122(1A), the penalty is to be imposed in respect of a taxable person who issues any invoice documents by using registration number of another registered person. The further allegation is that under section

122(1A) any person who obtains the benefit of a transaction covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or (ix) of sub-section (1) and in whose instance such transaction is conducted shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the tax evaded. 5. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that these provisions under which the penalty imposed are not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as there is no allegation or finding against the petitioner that he had issued any invoice or document using the registration number of another registered person. Further, the imposition of penalty under section

122(1A) is also not applicable inasmuch as the same brought into the statute by the Finance Act 2020, w.e.f. 01.01.2021 and the period of transaction alleged against the writ petitioner pertains to 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-2021. Under such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the imposition of penalty on the writ petitioner by issuing a common show-cause notice is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and penalty cannot be imposed on the grounds on which it is sought to be imposed against the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the penalty is also imposed on the grounds of evasion of taxes by the petitioner when there is no finding or demand by the GST authorities in respect of the petitioner for recovery of any taxes held to be paid by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, he submits that the impugned order in original insofar as it relates to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act as also been declared by the Apex Court as well as by this Court therefore, be interfered with, set aside and quashed and during the tendency of the writ petition, the same should be stayed.

7. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, GST submits that there i