None appeared for Hearing Despite Multiple Notices: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses to Quash ₹1.37 Cr Personal Penalty under GST [Read Order]

In a recent decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to interfere with a personal penalty of ₹1.37 crore imposed under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, 2017. The court noted that the petitioner did not appear for a personal hearing despite multiple notices.

The petition was filed by Rohan Tanna. He challenged the Order passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise holding that the plea of violation of natural justice was not made out when several opportunities of hearing were granted but not utilised.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the adjudication order insofar as it related to him. He requested to quash the personal penalties aggregating to ₹1,37,31,013 imposed under Sections 122(1), 122(3) and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

He also sought to set aside the recommendation for prosecution under Section 132(1)recorded in the impugned order. He prayed to issue directions to withdraw any coercive recovery actions such as attachment, debit freeze, garnishee proceedings, etc.

The GST department opposed the petition clearly. The department pointed out that a notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act had already been issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner himself had filed a copy of such notice on record.

It was further submitted that multiple opportunities of personal hearing were provided through hearing notices dated 07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 20.11.2024 and 04.12.2024, but the petitioner did not appear before the adjudicating authority.

Also Read:Himachal Pradesh SGST Dept. Authorizes GST Officers as “Proper Officers” for Powers u/s 74A and 75 of HPGST Act [Read Circular]

The petitioner had had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107, and therefore the writ petition should not be entertained, said the department.

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi observed the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings. The petitioner, himself produced Section 74 notice. It also noted that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities.

The Court additionally noted that although the impugned order was passed on February 5, 2025, the petitioner came before the High Court about 11 months later rather than using the appeal.

Therefore, the single bench refused to exercise writ power. The petition was dismissed and directed to approach the appellate authority for relief.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates