Exemplary Costs Imposed for Suppression of Facts: Abuse of Writ Jurisdiction Quashed

1. The Core Dispute: Suppression of Prior Litigation

The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court filing a writ petition to challenge an Appellate Order regarding the cancellation of their GST registration.

The Hidden Fact: The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition for the exact same relief. That earlier petition was withdrawn after the court permitted the petitioner to instead pursue a statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act (Application for Revocation of Cancellation).
The Misrepresentation: In the second (instant) writ petition, the petitioner framed their arguments to suggest that the previous petition did not challenge the Appellate Order, but was only related to the filing of a Section 30 application. This was a calculated attempt to mislead the court into re-entertaining a challenge that had already been withdrawn.

2. The Legal Ruling: Abuse of Process and Misleading Averments

The High Court took a very serious view of the petitioner’s conduct, emphasizing that the “sanctity of writ jurisdiction” relies on the absolute honesty of the petitioner.

I. Principle of “Uberrima Fides” (Utmost Good Faith)

The court held that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 must come with “clean hands.” By suppressing the fact that an identical prayer was made and withdrawn in an earlier proceeding, the petitioner failed this fundamental test.

II. Misleading the Bench

The court found that the petitioner had “cleverly tried to mislead” the court by confining paragraph-wise averments only to the Section 30 application, while the prayer clause still sought the quashing of the Appellate Order. This was categorized as an abuse of the process of law.

3. Final Order and Penalties

Exemplary Costs: The High Court imposed an exemplary cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner for the suppression of material facts and attempting to mislead the judiciary.
Dismissal of Challenge: The petition challenging the Appellate Order was dismissed.
Alternative Relief: However, the court took note that the petitioner eventually gave up the challenge to the Appellate Order during the hearing. It directed the GST authorities to decide the petitioner’s pending Section 30 application (Revocation of Cancellation) on its own merits within twelve weeks, strictly in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Disclose All Prior Proceedings: Failing to mention a previous withdrawal of a similar case is considered a “fraud on the court” and usually leads to immediate dismissal, regardless of the merits of your case.
Writ vs. Statutory Remedy: If you withdraw a writ petition to pursue an alternative remedy (like Section 30), you cannot “re-file” the same writ later unless the court specifically granted you “liberty to re-file” in the first instance.
The Cost of Cleverness: Modern courts are increasingly vigilant against “clever drafting” used to hide procedural history. Exemplary costs like the ₹25,000 imposed here serve as a deterrent against wasting judicial time.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Chandrakant Ramanlal Valand

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) Division 2^*

A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 560 of 2026

JANUARY 19, 2026

Gajendra P. Baghel for the Petitioner. Antrix Kapadiya, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

A.S. Supehia, J.- In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made a false and incorrect statement and has tried to mislead this Court.

2. At the outset, we may record that the averments made in paragraph No.17 of the memo of the writ petition. The same reads as under:-

“17. That the petitioner herein under the above facts and circumstances filed the Special Civil Application No.1266/2025, wherein vide order dated 18/6/2025, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition, in order to file application u/s. 30 of the Central/ State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-J.”

3. Thus, a bare perusal of the averment made in paragraph No.17 reveals that the petitioner has merely pointed out that he had filed Chandrakant Ramanlal Valand v. Deputy Commissioner [Special Civil Application No.1266 of 2025], which was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court in order to file an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, “CGST Act”).

4. Thus, the petitioner has very cleverly tried to mislead this Court by making the aforesaid averment, projecting it as though in the earlier petition there was no prayer challenging the Appellate Order, which is now challenged in the present writ petition. The prayers made in the writ petition are as under:-

“24. A. Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed in DCGST/APL-2/Ahemdabad/GST/APPEAL ORDER/NOVEMBER-24/2024-25/OW NO. 2125, Dtd. 29/11/2024, annexed as Annexure -‘A’, and the order Dtd. 20/4/2024, Passed by the respondent no. 2, vide No. ACST/UNT23/STO7/SUMOTOCANC EL/24-25/O-W303, annexure -G, in the interest of justice.

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED; to stay the implementation, operation, and execution of the impugned order passed in DCGST/APL-2/Ahemdabad/GST/APPEAL ORDER/NOVEMBER-24/2024-25/OW NO. 2125, Dtd. 29/11/2024, annexed as Annexure ‘A’, and the order Dtd. 20/4/2024, Passed by the respondent no. 2, vide No. ACST/UNT23/STO7/SUMOTOCANC EL/24-25/O-W303, annexure -I, in the interest of justice.

5. Alternatively, in the present writ petition further prayers are also made, which reads as under: –

“D. YOUR LORDSHIPS; be pleased to direct the respondent authority to decide the application preferred u/s. 30 of the Central/State Goods and service Tax Act, 2017, in the interest of justice.

E. Pass any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the interest of justice.”

6. At this stage, we may refer to the prayers made in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1266 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court as withdrawn at the request of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner for the purpose of preferring an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act.

7. The prayers made in the petition being Special Civil Application No.1266 of 2025 are as under:-

“24. A. Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed in DCGST/APL-2/Ahemdabad/GST/APPEAL ORDER/NOVEMBER-24/2024-25/OW NO. 2125 Dtd. 29/11/2024, annexed as Annexure -‘A’, and the order Dtd. 20/4/2024, Passed by the respondent no. 2, vide No. ACST/UNT23/STO7/SUMOTOCANCEL/24-25/0-W303, annexure -G, in the interest of justice.

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED; to stay the implementation, operation, and execution of the impugned order passed in DCGST/APL-2/Ahemdabad/GST/APPEAL ORDER/NOVEMBER-24/2024-25/OW NO. 2125, Dtd.29/11/2024, annexed as Annexure -‘A’, and the order Dtd. 20/4/2024, Passed by the respondent no. 2, vide No. ACST/UNT23/STO7/SUMOTOCANCEL/24-25/O-W303,annexure-L in the interest of justice.”

8. Thus, for the very same prayers, which are made in the present writ petition challenging the order, the petitioner had already filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1266 of 2025, which was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court only for the purpose of preferring an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act.

9. The prayers challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, which were already made in the earlier petition, were not addressed by the Coordinate Bench, and no leave was sought by the petitioner to challenge the same subsequently, in the event of any orders being passed pursuant to the application filed under Section 30 of the CGST Act.

10. In the entire writ petition, we do not find any averment suggesting that in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 29.11.2024 and that the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. The petitioner has, in fact, suppressed the material fact that for the very same prayer challenging the Appellate Order dated 29.11.2024, an earlier writ petition had already been filed and withdrawn, and has attempted to mislead this Court by making the averments in paragraph No.17 confined only to filing an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act. Hence, this is a fit case where exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- is required to be imposed and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. After the aforesaid order was passed, at this stage, learned advocate Mr.Baghel, appearing for the petitioner, does not press prayers B and C of the writ petition. So far as the alternative prayers are concerned, we direct that the respondent-authority shall decide the application filed by the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

12. With these directions and observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.