Gauhati High Court
Hansbir Betala vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 30 January, 2026
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010012712026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/436/2026
HANSBIR BETALA
SON OF SHRI M. C. BETALA, RESIDENT OF CARE OF MC BETALA AND CO,
1ST FLOOR, SHREE RAM MARKET, CHHATRIBARI, GUWAHATI- 781001,
DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, FINANCE
AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.
2:THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE
77
RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWAL ROAD
OPP. SRIMANTA SANKARDEVA KALAKSHETRA
P.O. PANJABARI
GUWAHATI- 781037.
3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI.
4:THE ADDITIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER
GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI -781001
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, 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
30.01.2026 Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.J. Saikia, learned for the petitioner. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, GST for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4; Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appears for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 30.06.2025 as well as the order-in-original dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Jurisdictional Officer imposing penalty on the writ petitioner under section 119 and 122(1A). The learned 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 16.12.2025 the demand raised by the show cause notice stood confirm.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of section 122(1A) and 119, 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 Page No.# 3/5 section 122(1A) any person who obtains the benefit of a transaction covered under 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 Page No.# 4/5 interfered with, set aside and quashed and during the tendency of the writ petition, the same should be stayed.
6. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, GST for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4; Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appears for respondent No.1.
7. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel, GST submits that there is a clear 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(1)(xix) and 122(1A) it is seen that Section 122 & 119 is for imposition of penalty when a taxable person issues invoice or documents by using registration number of another registered Page No.# 5/5 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 119, 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.
12. Until further orders, the impugned demand made pursuant to the order in original dated 16.12.2025 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