The Court held that since the officer who passed the order was the same rank as the officer later formally assigned under CBIC Circular No. 254, Section 160 saves the proceedings from invalidity.
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty order of Rs. 17.27 crores imposed under Section 122(1)(ii) of the CGST Act for issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods, rejecting the petitioner’s contention that no proper officer had been assigned functions under Section 122 prior to CBIC Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 [M/s. Charanji Distributors v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors.].
The bench led by Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda noted that while the show-cause notice was issued on 17.02.2025 and the order-in-original on 15.10.2025 — both prior to the Circular dated 27.10.2025 — the order had been passed by the Joint Commissioner, who was the very officer designated as the proper officer for cases exceeding Rs. 2 crores under the subsequent Circular.
Relying on Section 160 of the CGST Act, which provides that no proceedings shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission if they are in substance and effect in conformity with the Act, and on the coordinate bench decision in Alokadci Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, the Court held that the proceedings could not be assailed merely on the ground of the timing of the formal assignment.
The Court declined to examine other grounds — including the challenge on double penalisation under Section 122(1)(ii) and Section 122(1A), the voluntariness of statements, and the question of prior ITC reversal by recipients — holding that these could be raised before the appellate authority. It excluded the period spent pursuing the writ petition from the limitation period for appeal.
2026-juristway.com-3092-HC(Telangana)-GST
