• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Tripura HC: GST Officials Must Pass Reasoned Order Even If Penalty Is Paid Under Duress

Tripura HC's Order in The Case of M/S R. G. Group vs. Union of India

The Tripura High Court has recently clarified that a penalty paid under economic pressure cannot be considered a voluntary admission of liability. The Court further emphasised that tax authorities are still required to issue a final, well-reasoned order in accordance with the Tripura State GST Act, 2017.

A recent ruling has emerged from the case involving R G Group, a supplier of electrical goods based in Tripura. In July 2024, the company’s consignment was detained by GST enforcement officials. This action was taken due to claims of expired e-way bills and discrepancies associated with the vehicle involved in the shipment.

In an order passed on November 5, 2025, the Bench, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, said that the penalty paid via the RG Group to secure the release of its goods cannot be regarded as a voluntary acceptance of liability.

“Such a payment of penalty under economic duress cannot be treated by the respondents as a voluntary payment of penalty exonerating the respondents from passing an order as mandated by the latter part of sub-section (3) of Section 12,9 justifying imposition of penalty on the petitioner.”

The court expressed its “shock” at the revenue’s stance, highlighting that despite a statutory requirement, the Superintendent of State Taxes in Tripura had not issued any order justifying the levying of a penalty on the applicant for over 16 months.

From the facts on July 9, 2024, RG Groups’ goods were confined at Bagma, Gomati, with officials alleging expired E-Way bills and a vehicle mismatch. On July 10, a physical verification did not discover any discrepancies between the goods and invoices.

Even after this, a detention order and a Show Cause Notice (SCN) were issued demanding a penalty of Rs 4.9 lakh.

The applicant, to get immediate release of the goods and vehicle, had paid the whole amount on July 26, 2024, while asking that a final order be passed so that the penalty can be contested before the appellate authority.

The government said that as the penalty was paid, there is no need to pass a final order. The claim has been rejected by the High Court, outlining that the payment was made under economic pressure and not as a voluntary admission of obligation.

The court said that on July 26, 2024, the applicant sent a letter to the tax officer specifying that he was paying the full penalty to get his goods released and asking the officer to issue the final order so he could contest the same afterwards if required.

“On 26.7.2024, a letter (Annexure-14) was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent no.4 where the petitioner stated that he was payinghe full penalty amount in dispute and specifically requesting the said officer to pass MOV-09 order (under sub-section (3) of Section 129) within the time frame, so that he can challenge it in appeal before the appellate authority. Thus the payment of penalty was obviously made only to secure the release of goods and was under economic duress, and the petitioner clearly indicated his wish to challenge the order when passed in appeal.”

Read Also: Madras HC: Tax Officers Must Apply Sense, Not Treat GST Notice Service as Formality

The court mentioned that as the authorities do not pass a final order validating the penalty post acknowledging the representation of the applicant, the penalty collection was without legal authority and breached Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

As per that, the High Court permitted the writ petition asking the respondents to refund the whole penalty with 9% interest from the payment date till the refund. The court awarded Rs 25,000 in costs against the responsible officer and asked the State and Commissioner of State Taxes to investigate the officer’s conduct and take disciplinary action if required.

Case TitleM/S R. G. Group vs. Union of India
Case No.WP(C) No.611 of 2025
For PetitionerMr Samar Das and Mr Kaushik Paul
For RespondentMr P. Gautam, Mr B. Majumder, and Mr S. Choudhury
Tirpura High CourtRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous.
View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

Best Offer in 2025

Powering India's Taxation Experts with Innovation

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

New Tax Offer 2025

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Current GST Due Dates