High Court of Gujarat17 June 2026

Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal v. Union of India

For revenue

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7965 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 122, read with Section 90, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Supreme Court18 Aug 2026

For revenue

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner 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 assessee was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority; instant Court found no error in impugned order passed by High Court, SLP was to be disposed of

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

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

Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST

Arun Kumar Jain v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate

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

Read the full analysis