Mayank Bansal v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
Mayank Bansal and other partners of a construction firm challenged penalty before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 24 of 2026, decided 8 June 2026). Revenue found GST evasion involving undisclosed cash transactions without invoices on transfer of development rights, with partners retaining the economic benefit and transactions undertaken at their instance. Penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act was imposed on them as persons responsible for the firm's conduct. The court upheld the levy, holding that Section 122(1A) targets natural persons behind violations irrespective of corporate or partnership structure. The writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. Personal penalty on partners remains sustainable where responsibility, knowledge, and benefit are established on the adjudication record.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.122 — Penalty for certain offences under GST.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raju Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation
Raju Sharma, operating as a sole proprietorship, challenged penalty before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 16100 of 2026, decided 16 July 2026) for alleged issuance of invoices without supply and availment of input tax credit without receipt of goods. Adjudication under Section 122 relied heavily on statements of third parties; the assessee's request for cross-examination of those deponents was denied. Under Sections 122, 75, and 136, the court held that denial of cross-examination on material used to impose penalty amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication with a meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. The outcome favoured the assessee with remand rather than final acquittal on merits.
In favour of the assessee
Vikas Kumar Omar v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate at Rohtak
Vikas Kumar Omar filed a writ before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (decided 14 July 2026) against penalty imposed under Sections 122 and 126 of the CGST Act without issuance of a prior show cause notice and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Non-compliance with the statutory mandate of natural justice in penalty proceedings vitiated the impugned order ab initio. Section 126 requires consideration of mitigating factors only after proper adjudicatory process is followed. The court quashed the unsustainable penalty. The outcome favoured the assessee. Penalty under the CGST framework cannot be imposed without SCN and a fair hearing, regardless of the strength of the revenue's underlying allegations on bogus credits or invoices. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Sunil Chauhan Prop of Shree Chem India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North
Sunil Chauhan, proprietor of Shree Chem India, challenged adjudication before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 8412 of 2026, decided 9 July 2026). A show cause notice under Section 74 alleged mis-declaration, undervaluation, and clandestine clearance of agro-chemical products, proposing demand of tax, interest, and multiple penalties including under Section 122. The petitioner argued penalties required separate proceedings from tax adjudication. The court held that the proper officer adjudicating tax liability from the same notice is competent to impose all consequential penalties in one integrated proceeding; Rule 142 does not mandate split adjudications. No jurisdictional error was found. The writ was dismissed in favour of the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Marginmart Ifosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioncr CGST
Marginmart Ifosystems (P) Ltd. filed an Article 226 writ before the High Court of Delhi (decided 9 July 2026) against penalty proceedings for issuing tax invoices without actual supply and wrongful availment of input tax credit, after investigation found the purported recipient entity non-existent. The company raised jurisdiction and procedural grounds at the threshold. The court noted an effective statutory remedy under Section 107 to challenge the penalty order on merits and on jurisdictional questions, with Section 126 governing mitigating circumstances at adjudication. Writ jurisdiction was not exercised at this stage; the petitioner was directed to pursue appeal, leaving all issues open for the Appellate Authority. The outcome favoured the revenue on maintainability rather than on substantive penalty merits. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Ind-korosho Exim v. State Tax Officer-2
Ind-korosho Exim challenged a penalty order before the High Court of Madras (WP No. 21615 of 2026, decided 6 July 2026) for alleged non-maintenance of records under Section 122 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that Section 47 prevented penalty once late fee was levied for related defaults. Section 47 deals specifically with belated filing of returns; Section 122 covers multiple compliance failures including non-maintenance of books under Sections 35 and 36. The court found no statutory overlap barring a distinct penalty for record-keeping failures separate from return delays. The impugned order disclosed no jurisdictional or legal infirmity warranting writ interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed in favour of the State Tax Officer. Practitioners should distinguish return-filing defaults from independent Section 122 breaches.