Recommended Free Tools
The Delhi High Court declined to hear three petitions challenging CGST penalties, directing the petitioners to use the statutory appeal route under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reported ruling did not decide whether the penalties were valid, whether proceedings were time-barred, or which liability provision applied; those issues remain for the appellate authority to examine.
What the Delhi High Court decided
In Siya Seth Proprietor – Spherion Solutions v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors., W.P.(C) 14095/2026, citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1076, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to entertain three connected writ petitions at this stage. LiveLawBiz reported the decision on 6 October 2026.
The petitions challenged penalties imposed under Section 122 of the CGST Act. The Court pointed the petitioners to an appeal under Section 107, where they could raise their objections. As the report describes the decision, it is about the appropriate forum and procedure—not a final judgment on the penalty challenges.
The Court reportedly said: “These issues can equally be urged before and examined by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.” Read LiveLawBiz’s report on the ruling.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
Which objections can be raised in the appeal?
Limitation and the reasonable-period question
The petitioners argued that Section 127 does not specify a limitation period for the proceedings. The report says the Court considered whether the action had been taken within a reasonable period to be a question that depended on the circumstances and could be examined in the appeal. The Court did not set a fixed deadline or rule that the proceedings were time-barred.
Whether the proceedings were initiated by the Proper Officer
The petitioners also challenged whether the proceedings were initiated by the Proper Officer. According to the report, deciding that objection required applying the relevant statutory provisions to the adjudication order’s factual findings. The High Court left the issue for the appellate authority rather than resolving it in the writ petitions.
Which Section 122 liability category applies
The petitioners argued that their individual liability should be considered under Section 122(1A) or Section 122(3), rather than Section 122(1), after identifying the alleged mastermind. The report says the Court treated the choice of liability provision as another issue suitable for consideration in appeal. It did not decide which subsection applied to any petitioner.
Natural justice
The petitioners alleged a breach of natural justice. The report says the Court noted that they had not identified a specific hearing opportunity that was denied or a particular submission or document that the adjudicating authority failed to consider. The report does not describe the Court as making a broader ruling that natural-justice objections can never be raised in a writ petition.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What happened in the underlying proceedings?
The three petitions arose from a common adjudication order dated 25 March 2026. LiveLawBiz says the order covered 154 noticees. In one petition, the reported penalty was ₹51,35,040 under Section 122(1)(vii).
The report says the adjudicating authority attributed an alleged network of 113 fake and non-existent firms to Pankaj Jha and alleged that the firms were used to avail input tax credit through invoices without actual supply. This is the report’s account of the authority’s findings and allegations; it should not be read as a finding by the High Court against every noticee.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the ruling means for someone challenging a CGST penalty
For the petitioners in this case, the immediate route identified by the Court was a statutory appeal under Section 107. The reported decision leaves their substantive objections open for that forum. It does not establish that the penalties were lawful, that they were unlawful, or that the petitioners will succeed on appeal.
The report does not establish the precise operative directions, whether any time would be excluded when calculating an appeal deadline, or the full wording of the order. Anyone relying on the decision for a live matter should check the judgment and the applicable appeal requirements rather than infer a deadline or procedural concession from the news report.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
