Penalty & confiscation — tax rulings

Delhi High Court13 Aug 2026

For revenue

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

Where directors and managing directors were subjected to penalty under section 122(1) for alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC by their companies, and applicability of section 122(1) to a person who was not a taxable person was pending consideration before Supreme Court, writ petition was not to be entertained as statutory appeal under section 107 was available, thus, petitioners were relegated to appellate remedy

Delhi High Court13 Aug 2026

For revenue

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

Allahabad High Court10 Aug 2026

For revenue

Nageen Traders and Molding India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P

Where petitioner challenged penalty above Rs. 1 crore under section 122(1) imposed by Deputy Commissioner after participating on merits, State circulars provided Deputy Commissioner authority for amounts above Rs. 2.5 crores and proper officer jurisdiction, thus, as authority was competent and petitioner had elected to contest on merits, writ petition was not to be entertained and statutory appeal remedy was to be directed

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court23 Jul 2026

For assessee

Mohd Hazzak Lohar v. Commissioner State Tax

Where goods in transit were intercepted and a show cause notice under section 129(3) was served, but penalty order was passed after the mandatory seven- day period, strict compliance with statutory timelines was required and delay beyond the permitted period rendered the penalty order invalid and liable to be quashed

Calcutta High Court16 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Raju Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation

Where penalty was imposed on sole proprietorship for alleged issuance of invoices without supply and availing ITC without receipt of goods, and request for cross-examination of persons whose statements formed basis of penalty was denied, such denial amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice, warranting setting aside of impugned order and fresh adjudication with cross-examination opportunity

Punjab & Haryana High Court14 Jul 2026

For assessee

Vikas Kumar Omar v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate at Rohtak

Where petitioner was penalized for GST offences without issuance of prior show cause notice and was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard, non- compliance with statutory mandate of natural justice under penalty provisions vitiated penalty, rendering impugned penalty unsustainable in law

Delhi High Court9 Jul 2026

For revenue

Marginmart Ifosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioncr CGST

Where penalty proceedings for issuance of invoices without actual supply and wrongful ITC were initiated after an investigation found recipient non-existent, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available to challenge both jurisdiction and procedural grounds, writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained, and petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority

Delhi High Court9 Jul 2026

For revenue

Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North

Where petitioner, a proprietor engaged in trading agro-chemical products, was issued SCN for mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance leading to demand of tax, interest and penalties, proper officer adjudicating tax liability from SCN was also competent to impose all consequential penalties in same adjudication as statute does not require separate proceedings, showing no jurisdictional error

Madras High Court6 Jul 2026

For revenue

Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2

Where petitioner challenged order imposing penalty for non-maintenance of records relying on section 47 that penalty under Section 122 could not be imposed after levying late fee thereunder, since section 47 pertains to belated filing of returns and section 122 prescribes penalty in respect of several matters including non- maintenance of books of accounts, there was no infirmity in order warranting interference and writ petition was to be dismissed

Gujarat High Court17 Jun 2026

For revenue

Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal v. Union of India

Where petitioners, partners of a trading firm were found complicit in generating fake invoices and e-way bills without actual supply, with admissions and forensic evidence linking them to hawala operations and cash returns, penalty was rightly imposed vide order passed under section 122 as their knowledge and consent was established, and absence of natural justice breach made writ interference unwarranted

Madras High Court17 Jun 2026

For assessee

Sai Cashew Processors v. Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Where both statutory late fee and general penalty were imposed for same delayed filing of returns, once specific late fee was prescribed and levied under law, imposition of general penalty for identical default was unwarranted and penalty orders were to be set aside while late fee remained intact

Madras High Court9 Jun 2026

For assessee

Sri Nav Visw Ratna Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer

Where statute prescribed late fee for delayed annual return, separate general penalty for same default was impermissible; late fee for 995-day delay was to be upheld, but penalty component was to be set aside as it would result in duplication of statutory consequence

Gauhati High Court8 Jun 2026

For revenue

Mayank Bansal v. Union of India

Where partners of construction firm were found to benefit from GST evasion involving undisclosed cash without invoices on transfer of development rights, and retained the benefit with transactions at their instance, penalty under Section 122(1A) was properly imposed on them as persons responsible, since the provision targets natural persons behind violations irrespective of entity structure. GST: Where SCN invoking Section 122(1A) was issued after its enforcement, targeting partners responsible for benefits retained from violations originally punishable under Section 122(1) during prior periods, Section 122(1A) merely identified liable persons without creating new violations, its application was valid for past transactions so long as SCN was issued after Section 122(1A) came into force

CGST S.122

Madras High Court5 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Tvl. Punitha Antony Store v. State Tax Officer

Where penalty equals to 100 percent of tax was imposed under Section 74 for alleged fraud though penalty only of 50 percent of tax under Section 74A was statutorily leviable, as provisions invoked had led to a higher penalty and materially altered liability, such error was not curable as a mere misquotation; impugned penalty order was to be quashed and fresh proceedings was to be initiated under correct provision