[2026:RJ-JP:6173-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19404/2025 Deepak Singh @ Dipa Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, Address- Kailash Puri Station Road, Near Parasuram Dharamsala, Bharatpur, Ra- jasthan- 321001, Proprietor M/s Shree Sidhi Vinayak Trading Company, Nai Mandi, Station Road, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Goods And Services Tax, Jaipur Zone, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar.

3. The Additional Commissioner, Cgst Commissionerate, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner, Ra-

jasthan Goods And Services Tax, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kawal Singh Loha with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Arnav Singh HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

10/02/2026

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021) and submitted that alternate remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) would not in any manner infringe upon his right to file a writ petition challenging the impugned or- der as the same has been passed without complying with the prin- ciples of natural justice. The submission is that while a reply was filed, the same had not been properly considered by the authorit- ies while passing the impugned order. It is his submission that Cir- cular dated 06.07.2022 has not been considered and the demand has wrongfully been raised under Section 74 from the petitioner.

3. While additionally imposing penalty in terms of Section 122 (1)(vii) of the Act of 2017, we find that the petitioner’s conten- tions have been noticed in the impugned order. A show cause no-

tice was given to the petitioner whereafter reply has been filed.

4. We, therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural justice have been violated. If a show cause notice would not have been given and the order would have been passed then perhaps he had a case for directly enter- taining the petition. However, if the contentions raised in the reply are alleged to have not been properly considered, the correct ap- proach would have been to take up all the remedies before the Appellate Authority where all the contentions can be raised. The aspect whether the petitioner is liable under Section 74 of the Act of 2017 or is liable only with respect to the penalty in terms of Section 122 (1)(vii) of the Act of 2017, can best be examined by the Appellate Authority as the factual aspects relating to having is- sued the invoices themselves or by another entity is a purely fac- tual scenario, which the concerned Appellate Authority has to ex-

amine.

5. Leaving it open for the petitioner to file an appeal and direct- ing the same to be considered on merits, we refrain from enter-

taining the writ petition, at this stage, with liberty to file an appeal within a period of 15 days. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be heard and decided on merits within a period of three months. It is directed that the Appellate Authority shall also take a decision whether the pre-deposit is required to be made by the petitioner or not, in the facts of the case, and may pass appropri-

ate orders of condoning the requirement of pre-deposit.

6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/20