GST Writ Petition Dismissed: Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates Importance of Section 107 Appeal in Rohan Tanna Case
Bypass the GST Appellate Remedy by Invoking Natural Justice?
Can an assessee directly approach the High Court against a GST adjudication order merely by alleging violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when the Department claims that several opportunities of personal hearing were provided?
The Chhattisgarh High Court has answered this question against the petitioner in Rohan Tanna v. Union of India, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable in the circumstances when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The ruling highlights the importance of attending adjudication proceedings and pursuing the prescribed appellate mechanism instead of directly invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 5 February 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur.
The adjudication order imposed personal penalties aggregating to ₹1,37,31,013 under Sections 122(1), 122(3) and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017. It also recommended prosecution under Section 132(1) of the Act.
The petitioner contended that the order had been passed without proper service of notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the adjudication proceedings were conducted without providing a fair opportunity to defend the case.
The Department, however, disputed the allegation. It submitted that a notice under Section 74 dated 31 October 2022 had been served and that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities of personal hearing.
The Department further argued that the petitioner could challenge the adjudication order by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and, therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.
The Department’s Stand: Multiple Hearing Opportunities Were Granted
A significant aspect of the case was the documentary record relating to the service of notice and opportunities of personal hearing.
The Department pointed out that the petitioner himself had filed a copy of the notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act dated 31 October 2022.
Further, the impugned Order-in-Original recorded that personal hearing opportunities had been provided on the following dates:
• 7 June 2024
• 28 June 2024
• 20 November 2024
• 4 December 2024
Despite these opportunities, the petitioner did not appear before the adjudicating authority.
The Department therefore submitted that the allegation of denial of natural justice was not sustainable, as the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to participate in the proceedings.
Findings of the Chhattisgarh High Court
The High Court examined the records and noted that the petitioner had himself produced the copy of the Section 74 notice issued by the adjudicating authority.
The Court also took note of the personal hearing opportunities recorded in the Order-in-Original. Since several opportunities had been granted and the petitioner had failed to appear, the Court held that it could not be said that proper opportunity of hearing had not been provided.
Another important factor considered by the Court was the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.
The adjudication order had been passed on 5 February 2025. Instead of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition after approximately 11 months.
The Court observed that an alternative remedy was available before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Legal Principle: Alternative Remedy Cannot Be Ignored Without Sufficient Grounds
The judgment reinforces an important principle governing writ jurisdiction in GST matters.
The existence of an alternative statutory remedy is a significant consideration when a taxpayer challenges an adjudication order before the High Court.
Where the CGST Act provides a specific appellate mechanism under Section 107, the assessee is ordinarily expected to pursue that remedy.
An allegation of violation of natural justice does not automatically guarantee admission of a writ petition. The factual circumstances, including whether notices were served and whether adequate opportunities of hearing were provided, remain relevant.
In the present case, the Court found that multiple hearing opportunities had been granted. Therefore, the petitioner’s allegation of denial of hearing did not persuade the Court to entertain the writ petition.
It is important to note that the judgment does not lay down an absolute bar against writ petitions in GST matters. The High Court’s decision was based on the facts before it, including the availability of an appellate remedy and the recorded opportunities of personal hearing.
Important Takeaways for Taxpayers and GST Practitioners
1. Attend Personal Hearings Seriously
Repeated non-appearance before the adjudicating authority may weaken a subsequent challenge based on violation of natural justice.
Where personal hearing notices are issued, the taxpayer should attend the hearing or, where necessary, seek an adjournment through a proper written request.
2. Maintain Documentary Evidence
Taxpayers should preserve:
• Copies of show cause notices and adjudication notices;
• Proof of service or non-service;
• Replies filed before the Department;
• Personal hearing requests and adjournment applications;
• Acknowledgements and portal records;
• Relevant correspondence with the adjudicating authority.
Such documents may become crucial in appellate or writ proceedings.
3. Section 107 Appeal Should Be Examined First
Where an adjudication order is passed under the CGST Act, the taxpayer should carefully examine the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107.
A writ petition should not be treated as a routine substitute for the statutory appeal.
4. Delay Can Become a Relevant Factor
In this case, the petitioner approached the High Court approximately 11 months after the adjudication order was passed.
The Court specifically noted this delay while considering the availability of the appellate remedy.
Taxpayers should therefore act promptly after receiving an adverse GST order and carefully evaluate the applicable appellate timelines.
5. Natural Justice Must Be Supported by Facts
A mere assertion that the principles of natural justice have been violated may not be sufficient.
The taxpayer should be able to demonstrate the actual procedural deficiency, such as improper service, denial of a requested hearing, or failure to consider a submitted reply, wherever applicable.
Conclusion
The decision in Rohan Tanna v. Union of India serves as a reminder that procedural safeguards under GST law must be exercised diligently by taxpayers.
The Chhattisgarh High Court declined to entertain the writ petition because the record reflected multiple opportunities of personal hearing and an alternative statutory appeal was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
For taxpayers and GST practitioners, the message is clear: do not ignore adjudication proceedings, maintain proper documentary evidence, and evaluate the statutory appellate remedy promptly before approaching the High Court.
The judgment reinforces the importance of following the prescribed appellate framework while also recognising that writ jurisdiction remains available in appropriate cases, depending on the facts and circumstances.
Case Citation:
• Case Name: Rohan Tanna v. Union of India
• Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
• Writ Petition: WPT No. 2 of 2026
• Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:1836
• Date of Decision: 13 January 2026
• Relevant Provisions: Sections 74, 107, 122(1), 122(3), 125 and 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017
Source: Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 13 January 2026.
The copy of the order is as under:
