Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shree Solar Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6395/2025
Shree Solar Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Through Director, Anirudh
Sharma S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore Sharma, Aged About 28 Years,
Business Address At C-16, Shiv Valley, Riico Rani Bazar, Road No.
4, Police Station Ganga Sahar, District Bikaner Rajasthan,
Permanent R/o Vishwakarma Colony, Behind Shiv Parwati
Temple, Police Station Ganga Sahar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan
Pin - 334401, Gst Tin - 08Aaxcs5585Q1Zq
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through General Of Goods And Services
Tax Intelligence And Central General Of Goods And
Services Tax Intelligence Department, Govt Of India New
Delhi.
2. The Principal Director General, Directorate General Of
Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Dggi Hqrs, Ist And
Iind Floor, Wing No. 6, West Block 08, Rk Puram, New
Delhi, Delhi 110066.
3. The Director General, Directorate General Of Goods And
Services Tax Intelligence Dggi, Dg North, Iiird Floor, Block
No. 44 Institutional Area, Sector 32, Opp. Medanta
Medicity, Gurugram 122001.
4. The Additional Director General Jaipur Zonal Unit,
Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) C-62,
Sarojini Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur 302006.
5. Deputy Director, Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence,
Udaipur Regional Unit (Jaipur Zonal Unit) Iind Floor, 142-
B, Sector 11, Hiran Magari, Udaipur, Raj 313002.
6. Chief Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax,
Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle,
C Scheme Jaipur 302005
7. The Deputy/assistant Commissioner Cgst And Central
Excise Division F, Bikaner Opposite Chetan Mahadev
Temple, Jaipur Road, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Panwar Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Rajat Choudhary Advocate
No.2 to 5 through VC
For Respondents : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav Advocate
No.6 & 7
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
Judgment
RESERVED ON :: 19th August 2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: August 2025
(Per Hon’ble Sandeep Taneja, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking
following reliefs :
“A. That the writ petition filed by the petitioner may very kindly
be allowed and through this writ petition humble request of
present petitioner to kindly direct the respondent DGGI agencies in
order to release the seized material, documents, and other
relevant materials, Tally Software/laptop, handover seized hard
cash which was seized from cash counter of present petitioner,
seized signed all the cheques, mobile phones, DVR and 1 TB hard
disk and other relevant material seized in the name of
investigation.
B. The Panchnama (Annex.-3) created by the Department must
be quashed and set aside as the Panchnama has been created
without following the Section 67 of CGST Act and guidelines of the
Panchnama and seizure operation as well as the seizure was
suppose to be done by Joint Commissioner but is not followed in
current case.
C. That SCN notice (Annex.-4) as well as SCN order (Annex.-9)
are supposed to be quashed and set aside because violation of
Rule 26 under CGST Rules has been done by generating SCN order
manually and issuing one SCN for multiple financial years is also
totally contradictory to provisions of law.
D. To direct respondent DGGI agencies in order to hear the
present petitioner submissions made before the Commissionerate
CGST and conclude the submissions expeditiously as per law and
then generate SCN if applicable as per law.
E. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this
Hon’ble Court is please to consider just and proper in the fact and
circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of
the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner, a private limited
company, is engaged in the business of installing solar panels at
residential and commercial buildings. Petitioner is also engaged in
supplying of goods related to solar power generating system and
solar power based devices.
2.1 Respondents carried out search and seizure proceedings at
business premises of petitioner on 12 th April 2024 and 13th April
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
2024. During said proceedings, certain material documents and
other items were seized and panchnama was prepared on 13th
April 2024. Being aggrieved by action of respondents, petitioner
filed a writ petition before this Court bearing D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.16877/2024 seeking issuance of a direction to release
seized material and other relevant materials.
2.2 Respondents also issued a show cause notice dated 3 rd
August 2024 to petitioner under Section 74(1) of Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of Integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During pendency of above-
mentioned writ petition, petitioner filed a reply to show cause
notice on 11th October 2024.
2.3 This Hon’ble Court by order dated 12th November 2024
dismissed the said writ petition with a direction to appellate
authority namely the Commissioner, CGST to decide the appeal
within a time-limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of order.
2.4 Subsequent thereto, petitioner was called for personal
hearing on 10th December 2024. On the said date, petitioner was
represented by Mr. Mohit Golechha, C.A. and Mr. Ankit Majumdar,
Advocate before the adjudicating authority and submitted
additional submissions. Thereafter, adjudicating authority passed
order in original dated 31st December 2024, which is impugned in
present petition.
2.5 It is submitted that on 2nd January 2025 when petitioner
approached respondents with set of documents, it came to his
knowledge that adjudicating authority had already passed
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
impugned order. Having come to know of impugned order,
petitioner addressed a letter dated 21 st January 2025 to the
Additional Commissioner requesting for reconsideration and review
of order. The said representation was considered and by letter
dated 18th February 2025 issued by Additional Commissioner, it
was communicated that the order in original was passed correctly
and no action is pending before adjudicating authority. It appears
that subsequently also petitioner addressed a letter/ email to
respondents on 10th March 2025 which came to be rejected by
letter dated 18th March 2025 issued by the Additional
Commissioner.
3. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that on 10 th December
2024, petitioner sought four weeks’ time to file additional
documents which were running into 8000 to 10000 pages and the
said request of petitioner was verbally accepted by adjudicating
authority. Despite granting time, the adjudicating authority, even
before the period of four weeks got over and petitioner could
submit additional documents, passed impugned order without
affording proper opportunity of hearing.
4. Per contra, counsel for respondents has submitted that
petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under
Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act,2017 and
hence writ is not maintainable. It is further submitted that
opportunity of personal hearing was given to petitioner who
appeared through its representatives on 10 th December 2024 and
also submitted additional submissions in addition to the reply to
show cause notice which was filed earlier. It is also submitted that
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
on 10th December 2024 representatives of petitioner sought two
weeks’ time to file additional documents, however, within the said
period of two weeks, no further documents were submitted by
petitioner, hence adjudicating authority proceeded to pass
impugned order. It is further stated that petitioner submitted the
additional documents on 2nd January 2025, after passing of the
impugned order dated 31st December 2024.
5. The grievance of petitioner is that opportunity of hearing was
not given and further that though petitioner was granted time of
four weeks to file additional documents on 10 th December 2024,
however even before said period got over, adjudicating authority
passed impugned order. Hence, impugned order has been passed
in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. We find that in Paragraph 9 of petition, it is averred that
department asked petitioner to submit additional documents and
therefore, petitioner sought four weeks’ time to comply with said
directions. Relevant portion of Paragraph 9 is reproduced as
under :
“The present petitioner was not given a chance for person hearing
even after orders passed by Hon’ble High Court on dated 12-11-
2024 subsequently on dated 10-12-2024 present petitioner was
asked to appear before the respondent agencies, the present
petitioner as per the directions reached before the competent
authorities on dated 10-12-2024, but the complete hearing was not
conducted on dated 10-12-2024 as the respondent department
asked for certain more documents from present petitioner in order
to valuate the discrepancies observed by the respondent
department, the present petitioner was ready to provide the
documents asked for but requested four weeks time in order to
comply with the directions given by the respondents department on
dated 10-12-2024. The present petitioner collected all the
documents and approached respondent DGGI official on dated 02-
01-2025 with set of requested documents, but the respondent
agencies totally ignored to accept the set of documents and also
communicated to the present petitioner who was not aware about
the fact that respondent DGGI department has already passed a
speaking order on dated 31-12-2024……”
(Emphasis Supplied)
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
We are unable to accept the submission of petitioner as
petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that any
such direction was issued by respondents on 10 th December 2024.
7. Moreover in Paragraph 3 of additional affidavit filed by
petitioner, it is mentioned that Mr. Mohit Golechha, C.A. and
Mr. Ankit Majumdar, Advocate represented petitioner on 10 th
December 2024 before adjudicating authority. They are the best
persons to affirm about proceedings which took place on 10 th
December 2024. However, their affidavits have not been placed in
support of contention that department had requested petitioner to
furnish further documents and verbally granted four weeks’ time
to furnish the same.
8. In Paragraph 3 of additional affidavit, it is further averred
that concerned official of respondents verbally requested the
representatives of petitioner to furnish more documents.
Petitioner’s representatives then verbally sought four weeks’ time
to furnish more documents and verbally both concerned authority
as well as representatives of petitioner mutually agreed for second
round of personal hearing after four weeks.
9. We fail to understand that why would department require the
petitioner to file additional documents. It was for petitioner to
submit documents to substantiate its case before adjudicating
authority, more particularly when petitioner had already filed reply
to the show cause notice and also additional submissions in
addition to the reply. Hence, we are convinced with contention of
respondents that on 10th December 2024, petitioner sought two
weeks’ time to file additional documents.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
10. We further observe that after having knowledge of impugned
order, first letter written by petitioner to respondents is letter
dated 21st January 2025. In said letter, it is nowhere mentioned
that adjudicating authority had granted four weeks’ time to
petitioner to file additional documents. There is no reference of
proceedings dated 10th December 2024. If petitioner had been
granted four weeks’ time to file additional documents, there would
have been reference of proceedings dated 10 th December 2024 in
said letter.
11. Petitioner has also relied upon order dated 12th November
2024 to show that Court had directed respondents to pass order
within 30 days. In fact, for alleged non-compliance of said order,
petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing D.B. Writ Contempt
No.272/2025 which was dismissed on 3 rd March 2025. On one
hand, petitioner relies upon the said order and on the other hand,
petitioner contends that it sought four weeks’ time on 10 th
December, 2024, which itself would have flouted the above
mentioned time line of 30 days.
12. A bare perusal of impugned order reveals that opportunity of
hearing was given to petitioner on 10 th December 2024 and reply
and additional submissions made by petitioner were also duly
considered before passing the said order.
13. In view of above, we are of considered opinion that petition
is grossly misconceived and wholly devoid of merits. Contention of
petitioner that it was granted four weeks’ time to file documents
on 10th December 2024 is grossly misleading and appears to be an
attempt to cause delay or stall recovery of amount.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37184-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-6395/2025]
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal1 held that
in view of availability of alternative statutory remedy, writ will not
be maintainable.
Further, this case does not fall in any of the parameters laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool
Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
Others2 where alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in
maintaining writ petition.
15. We are thus not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
in exercise of our discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction.
16. Petitioner may avail remedy of appeal, if so advised, against
impugned order in accordance with law. The time commencing
from filing of this petition, i.e., 20 th March 2025 till disposal shall
be excluded in calculating limitation for filing the appeal.
17. We make it clear that we have not made any comment on
merits of the matter.
18. With above observations, petition dismissed.
19. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ
ms rathore
1 (2014) 1 SCC 603
2 (1998) 8 SCC 1
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:47:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)