Vinit Shyamsukha vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 839 Gua

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 839 Gua
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Vinit Shyamsukha vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 6 February, 2026

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                  Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010022402026




                                                           undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/625/2026

         VINIT SHYAMSUKHA
         PROPRIETOR OF M/S S.G. ENTERPRISES, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF
         LATE LUNKARAN SHYAMSUKHA, RESIDENT OF MISSION ROAD,
         BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA, ASSAM- 781315 IN THE DISTRICT OF
         BARPETA, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
         FINANCE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

         2:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
          GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE
          GST BHAWAN
          KEDAR ROAD
          MACHKHOWA
          GUWAHATI- 781001 (ASSAM)

         3:THE SUPERINTENDENT (HQRS. ANTI-EVASION)
          UNIT-1
          GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE
          GST BHAWAN
          KEDAR ROAD
          MACHKHOWA
          GUWAHATI-781001 (ASSAM)

         4:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
          GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE
          GST BHAWAN
          KEDAR ROAD
          MACHKHOWA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/5

            GUWAHATI-781001 (ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR P BARUAH,MR. N N DUTTA,MR S J
SAIKIA,MR P K BORA,B SARMA,MR. A. KAUSHIK

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

06.02.2026 Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Chetia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4; Ms. J Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand cum show cause notice dated 25.06.2025 as well as the order-in-original dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Jurisdictional Officer imposing penalty on the writ petitioner under section 122(1A).

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made against the writ petitioner is that he had facilitated other entities of falsifying the benefits under the GST Act. Under such circumstances, the show cause notices were issued, which were replied to and finally by the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 the demand raised by the show cause notice stood confirm.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of section 122(1A), the penalty is to be imposed in respect of a taxable person who issues any invoice documents by using registration number of another registered person. The further allegation is that under section 122(1A) any person who obtains the benefit of a transaction covered under Page No.# 3/5

clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or (ix) of sub-section (1) and in whose instance such transaction is conducted shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the tax evaded.

5. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that these provisions under which the penalty imposed are not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as there is no allegation or finding against the petitioner that he had issued any invoice or document using the registration number of another registered person. Further, the imposition of penalty under section 122(1A) is also not applicable inasmuch as the same brought into the statute by the Finance Act 2020, w.e.f. 01.01.2021 and the period of transaction alleged against the writ petitioner pertains to 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-2021. Under such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the imposition of penalty on the writ petitioner by issuing a common show-cause notice is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and penalty cannot be imposed on the grounds on which it is sought to be imposed against the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the penalty is also imposed on the grounds of evasion of taxes by the petitioner when there is no finding or demand by the GST authorities in respect of the petitioner for recovery of any taxes held to be paid by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, he submits that the impugned order in original insofar as it relates to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act as also been declared by the Apex Court as well as by this Court therefore, be interfered with, set aside and quashed and during the tendency of the writ petition, the same should be stayed.

7. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, GST submits that there is a clear Page No.# 4/5

finding that the petitioner has facilitated uses of the same place of business for all the four tax evaders and before the authorities he has admitted that he had allowed the other four entities to operate their business by subletting a portion. Under such circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel, GST submits that there is no infirmity in the proceedings undertaken by the GST authorities by imposition of the show cause notice and imposition of penalty by the order in origin.

8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the matter will require consideration therefore, let notices issued returnable within four weeks.

9. Since the respondents are represented, notices waived. However, extra copies be furnished within a period of one week from today.

10. Upon careful perusal of the pleadings available in the writ petition and the order in original as also the provisions of Section 122(1A) it is seen that Section 122 is for imposition of penalty when a taxable person issues invoice or documents by using registration number of another registered person.

11. Based on the facts urged before the Court and as is evident from the order in original prima facie does not appear to be correct in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, more particularly, when there is no tax demand made against a registered person. That apart, penalty under Section 122(1A) is imposed for the assessment year 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-2021 when it is seen clearly that Section 122(1A) was inserted in the statute w.e.f. 01.01.2021. At least in so far as the assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 is concerned prima facie it appears to the Court that Section 122(1A) may not be applicable to the writ petition. Under such circumstances let the respondents complete their instructions and file necessary affidavits in the meantime.

Page No.# 5/5

12. Until further orders, the impugned demand made pursuant to the order in original dated 23.12.2025 insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned shall remain stayed.

13. The learned Standing Counsel, GST strongly objects to the prayer made for stay or suspension of the impugned order.

14. Accordingly, let notice be issue on the interim prayer returnable on 06.03.2026.

15. Matter be listed on 06.03.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant