SMT USHA W/O SHRI TARUN vs UNION OF INDIA

[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21730/2026
CNR: RJHC021030082026 | URN: CW / 45588U / 2026
Smt Usha W/o Shri Tarun, Aged About 40 Years, Prop Of M/s
Madhav Cotton And Oil Mill C/o Tarun, H N 408, Saini Pura, Ward
No. 7 Charkhi Dadri, Haryanan- 127306
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Finance Secretary Ministry of
Finance Government of India New Delhi
2. The State of Rajasthan, through Chief Commissioner
State Goods and Service Tax Kar Bhawan Ambedkar Circle
Jaipur
3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax
Statue Circle C- Scheme Jaipur
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Ward-I Circle-B (State Tax)
Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma
Mr. Mayank Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with
Mr. Sankalp Vijay
Mr. Deepak Mittal
Mr. Arnav Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
29/10/2026
1. The present adjudication necessitates a delicate balancing of
the petitioner’s right to seek judicial review against the well-
established doctrine of exhaustion of alternative and efficacious
statutory remedies, particularly in matters of fiscal statutes and
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(2 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
tax evasion where disputed questions of fact are deeply
entrenched.
2. The present is the second round of litigation initiated by the
petitioner. The scope of the controversy involved is broadly
defined by the challenge raised regarding the final order of
confiscation passed in FORM GST MOV-11 dated 01.10.2026
(Annexure-16), along with a challenge to the letter dated
21.09.2026 (Annexure-15) demanding a bank guarantee of Rs.
42,05,898/-, and consequential orders.
3. The factual matrix culminating in the present adjudication,
stripped of superfluous details, is exhaustively delineated as
under:
3.1 The petitioner, claiming to be the proprietor of M/s Madhav
Cotton & Oil Mill, allegedly purchased edible oil from M/s Agarwal
Rice & Oil Mill, Hindaun City, under Tax Invoice dated 27.08.2026
and E-Way Bill of the same date, declaring the goods as
“Soyabean Refined Oil”.
3.2 The conveyance carrying the goods was intercepted by the
State Tax authorities at MIA, Alwar on 27.08.2026 at 10:05 PM.
Suspecting evasion due to stark route deviation and lack of
toll/RFID records, an order for physical verification in FORM GST
MOV-02 was issued.
3.3 Upon physical verification conducted on 02.09.2026 in FORM
GST MOV-04, a glaring discrepancy was unearthed. The goods
actually loaded in the vehicle were found to be “Mustard Oil” (HSN
1514) instead of the documented “Soyabean Refined Oil” (HSN
15079010). Moreover, the driver of the vehicle had absconded
from the scene after locking the steering.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(3 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
3.4 Subsequently, the show-cause notice for confiscation in
FORM GST MOV-10 was issued on 03.09.2026. Aggrieved by the
said notice, the petitioner approached this Court in the first round
of litigation by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18392/2026.
3.5 The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
15.09.2026 (Annexure-13), disposed of the said writ petition,
directing the release of the vehicle and goods subject to the
petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the
competent authority, expressly keeping the pending proceedings
unprejudiced.
3.6 In compliance with the said order, the respondent authority
issued the impugned letter dated 21.09.2026 (Annexure-15),
calling upon the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune
of Rs. 42,05,898/-.
3.7 When the petitioner failed to furnish the same, and after
considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner and
affording a personal hearing on 18.09.2026, the adjudicating
authority passed the final, detailed speaking order of confiscation
in FORM GST MOV-11 on 01.10.2026 (Annexure-16). Assailing the
said confiscation order, the petitioner files the present writ
petition.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the impugned orders are arbitrary, disproportionate, and
suffer from jurisdictional error. To substantiate the claim for
equitable relief bypassing the appellate forum, the following
exhaustive grounds are canvassed:
4.1 It is vehemently contended that the fine imposed exceeds
the statutory ceiling prescribed under the first proviso to Section
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(4 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
130(2) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. The penalty is levied twice,
and the fine is demanded from the petitioner in respect of a
conveyance not even owned by her.
4.2 It is further averred that the adjudicating authority relies on
mere surmises regarding the “impossible” transit time of 3 hours
16 minutes for 114 km, and the absence of RFID/Toll data.
Learned counsel submits that the CGST Act does not prescribe any
mandatory route, and mere route deviation cannot attract
confiscation.
4.3 Learned counsel relies upon the dicta encapsulated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar
of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2021) 6 SCC 771
arguing that an appeal under Section 107 of the Act is not an
efficacious remedy since the impugned order is passed in excess
of jurisdiction, violates principles of natural justice, and because
the goods are perishable in nature.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents raises a robust preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition and prays for its summary
dismissal on the following grounds:
5.1 It is contended that the present petition is entirely
misconceived as the petitioner has an availability of a statutory,
efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the
CGST/RGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority, i.e.,
Joint/Additional Commissioner (Appeals).
5.2 Learned counsel highlights the highly deplorable conduct of
the petitioner and the driver and submits that the driver fled the
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(5 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
scene in the dark, stalling the inspection. The physical verification
definitively proved that the goods transported were mismatched
(Mustard Oil instead of Soyabean Oil).
5.3 It is averred that the impugned order dated 01.10.2026
(Annexure-16) is a detailed, 23-page speaking order passed after
duly considering the petitioner’s reply and affording a personal
hearing on 18.09.2026, and therefore, it is submitted that the
plea of violation of natural justice is a facade.
5.4 Lastly, it is submitted that the dispute involves highly
complex questions of fact such as the chemical nature of the oil,
the logistical impossibility of the travel time, the bypassing of toll
plazas, and the creation of multiple E-way bills at the same time,
which cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction, and that the
Appellate Authority under Section 107 is the appropriate fact-
finding forum.
6. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties at length and upon an assiduous perusal of
the material available on record, including but not limited to the
impugned order of confiscation dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure-16)
and the order dated 15.09.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the first round of litigation (Annexure-13), we
observe that the Central/Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 is a self-contained, comprehensive code that prescribes a
robust statutory mechanism for the redressal of grievances.
7. The provisions enshrined under Section 107 of the
CGST/RGST Act, 2017 expressly provide an alternative and
efficacious remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any
decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority. The
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(6 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
impugned order of confiscation passed in FORM GST MOV-11 by
the Assistant Commissioner is an adjudicatory order squarely
appealable before the designated Appellate Authority.
8. We are of the view that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
meant to short-circuit or circumvent the statutory appellate
hierarchy created by the legislature. While the rule of exhaustion
of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not of compulsion,
the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Whirlpool Corporation (supra) namely, absolute lack of
jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or gross violation of
natural justice, are conspicuously absent in the present factual
matrix.
9. We observe that the petitioner was duly served a show-cause
notice, submitted a detailed reply, and was afforded a personal
hearing on 18.09.2026, which was attended by her authorized
representative. The adjudicating authority has subsequently
passed a voluminous, 23-page reasoned order (Annexure-16)
dealing with every single objection raised by the petitioner. Ergo,
the petitioner’s outcry alleging a breach of natural justice is
entirely hollow and devoid of merit.
10. We further note that the controversy at hand is deeply mired
in disputed questions of fact. Whether the oil transported was
Mustard Oil or Soyabean Oil, whether the physical verification was
hindered by the driver absconding, whether the travel time of 3
hours 16 minutes for the said route was physically impossible for a
heavy tanker, and whether the electronic RFID and toll plaza
mapping corroborates the physical movement, are all evidentiary
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(7 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
matters. A writ court, operating under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, cannot conduct a roving inquiry or act as an
appellate fact-finding forum to re-appreciate such intricate,
disputed evidence, and the Appellate Authority as prescribed
under Section 107 is statutorily equipped to sift through this
evidence.
11. The order dated 15.09.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the first round of litigation explicitly stated
that the release was without prejudicing the pending proceedings
before the competent authority. The competent authority has now
culminated those proceedings into a final confiscation order. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of the bank guarantee
demanded or the final quantification of the fine and penalty under
Section 130, the appropriate and lawful recourse is to file a
statutory appeal.
12. Operating as the sentinel on the qui vive (watchful guardian
of the Constitution), we cannot remain mute spectators to the
growing propensity of litigants to weaponize the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court to bypass robust statutory appellate
frameworks, and therefore, we cannot permit the writ jurisdiction
to be routinely invoked as a substitute for statutory appeals,
clogging the constitutional courts and rendering the statutory
appellate tribunals redundant, especially in taxation matters
where the revenue of the State is at stake.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, we are of
the considered view that the present writ petition is not
maintainable owing to the availability of an alternative and highly
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)

(8 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:44414-DB] [CW-21730/2026]
efficacious statutory remedy of appeal enshrined under Section
107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017.
14. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent
Appellate Authority in accordance with the law, and it is directed
that if such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the competent
Appellate Authority shall consider and adjudicate the same on its
own merits.
15. In light of the above terms, the present writ petition, stands
disposed of. It is made clear that no prejudice shall be caused to
either of the parties on account of the observations made herein-
above.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ
7 (DA)/JKP
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 10:56:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 11:32:10 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)