Gujarat High Court
Niraj Ram Kumar Tiwari (Proprietor) M/S … vs Union Of India, Chairman on 12 February, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1825/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1825 of 2026
==========================================================
NIRAJ RAM KUMAR TIWARI (PROPRIETOR) M/S MAA LOGISTICS
TRANSPORT COMPANY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, CHAIRMAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARJOTSINGH J KASSOWAL(11053) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEEPAK KHANCHANDANI for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 12/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner
has assailed the show-cause notice dated
28.01.2025 to the extent of proposed tax demand
along with penalty and interest under section 74
of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for
short “CGST Act“) and the Order-in-Original dated
19.12.2025.
2. At the outset, when this Court had confronted
learned advocate Mr.Kassowal about the
availability of alternate remedy challenging the
Order-in-Original, he has chosen to address the
matter on merits, and has invited the order on
merits. Hence, we are constrained to deal with
the contentions raised by him before this Court.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:31:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1825/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
3. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, as
mentioned in the averments made in the writ
petition as well as on the submissions, is that
since the respondents have not undertaken the
investigation in appropriate manner, the impugned
order is required to be quashed.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Kassowal has submitted
that the petitioner has no connection with M/s.
Mahalaxmi Transport and further while referring
to the contents of the show-cause notice, it is
submitted that the entire transactions as well as
preparation of Invoices and E-way Bills of the
goods were undertaken by Shri Dilshad Alam. He
has further invited attention of this Court to
the averments made in the writ petition regarding
Relied Upon Documents (RUDs), which were not
provided in the notice and thereafter, on
09.07.2025, the petitioner sought adjournment on
hearing and specifically requested RUD Nos.22 and
23 from respondent No.3 that these documents were
not furnished. It is urged by him that
considering such aspects, the present writ
petition may be allowed.
5. Learned Standing Counsel Mr.Khanchandani
appearing for the respondents has submitted that
the present writ petition is not maintainable
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:31:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1825/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
since the petitioner has efficacious remedy of
filing an appeal under section 107 of the CGST
Act before the appellate authority as the
petitioner has raised all the factual
contentions, which can be taken care of by the
appellate authority.
6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties and also perused the
documents, as pointed out by them.
7. At the outset, we had already clarified to
learned advocate Mr.Kassowal appearing for the
petitioner with regard to alternate remedy and if
he wants to avail the same, and he could do so
however, he has submitted that since the
petitioner is not having money for pre-deposit,
he would be inviting order of this Court on
merits.
8. At this stage, from the pleadings and factual
aspects as recorded by the respondent
authorities, it is noticed that the petitioner,
who is proprietor of M/s.Maa Logistics Transport
Company, has categorically in his statement
recorded on 05.07.2024 has admitted thus:
“2.20 Further, statement of Shri Neeraj Tiwari was
also recorded on 05.07.2024 (RUD-17) wherein the
letter received from Shri Dilshad Alam and abovePage 3 of 6
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:31:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1825/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
mentioned details (Para 2.16) of E-way. Bills have
been perused by him. On being asked about Shri
Dilshad Alam, he stated that Shri Dilshad Alam used
to prepare the Invoices & E-way Bills of the goods to
be transported from Halol, Gujarat to Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh and other places in Uttar Pradesh in the name
of said 08 fake firms and same were sent to Shri
Satish Mishra. Thereafter the same were provided to
the drivers for facilitator transportation and same
were collected from the drivers at Kanpur by Shri
Dilshad Alam. Further, he also stated that the
payment of transportation was made by Shri Dilshad
Alam to Drivers in Cash. Further, on being asked
about the above stated E-way Bills (as mentioned in
Para 2.19), he stated that he has no information
about these transactions. Further, Shri Neeraj Tiwari
had categorically denied that he is the owner of M/s.
Mahalaxmi Transport and stated that he is the owner
of M/s. Maa Logistics Transport Company, Kanpur. He
further stated that he used to sent his vehicle from
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh to Halo, Gujarat for
transportation and for return transportation from
Halol, Gujarat to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh of the same
he was availing services of Shri Satish Mishra for
the same purpose he used to keep his LR Book of M/s.
Maa Logistics Transport Company with Shri Satish
Mishra.
2.21 Further, the above statement dated 05.07.2024 of
Shri Neeraj Tiwari was also perused by both Shri
Satish Mishra while recording of his statement dated
18.07.2024 (RUD-18) & Shri Arun Kumar while recording
of his statement dated 18.07.2024 (RUD-19), wherein
they both have stated that Shri Neeraj Tiwari is the
sole owner of both the firms namely M/s. Mahalaxmi
Transport & M/s. Maa Logistics Transport Company.
They further stated that they were employees of Shri
Neeraj Tiwari and Shri Neeraj Tiwari used to give all
the directions related to business of M/s. Mahalaxmi
Transport. They further stated that, they used to
execute/supervise the work which was being done by M/
s. Mahalaxmi Transport on the directions of Shri
Neeraj Tiwari. They further stated that the work
which has been done by them at M/s. Mahalaxmi
Transport was on the sole directions of Shri Neeraj
Tiwari and same has been explained by them in their
previously recorded statements dated 10.07.2020 and
21.07.2020.”
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:31:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1825/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
9. The detailed investigation was undertaken and
it was found by the respondent authority that
Shri Dilshad Alam has created 08 firms on behest
of the present petitioner, who is the owner of M/
s.Mahalakshmi Transport, for the sole purpose of
clandestinely removal of goods from various Halol
based firms.
10. The adjudicating authority after considering
the applicability of Section 74 of the CGST Act
has opined that M/s.Mahalaxmi Transport was
required to register under the GSTN and above 05
firms were required to self-assess the taxes
payable in terms of Section 59 of the CGST Act
and were also required to self-assess eligibility
of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by them as per
provisions of section 16 and 17 of the CGST Act
however, the said firms did not self-assess
eligibility of ITC availed by them as per the
provisions of sections 16 and 17 of the CGST Act
with intention to evade tax. It was further
recorded that all these firms had suppressed the
material facts from the department, by resorting
to wilful mis-statement and suppression of the
facts, which is evident from the record. All
these transgressions came to the notice of
department only when the search was conducted,
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:31:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1825/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
and proceedings were initiated under the CGST
Act.
11. The adjudicating authority, after considering
the scrutiny of information and documents in
detail on record, has ultimately found various
persons and the companies including the
petitioner of supplying and transporting the
goods in a clandestine manner and ultimately, the
impugned order has been passed considering the
defense of the petitioner.
12. Since the petitioner has alternate
efficacious remedy of pointing out the facts and
also the violation of any provisions of the Act,
if any, before the appellate authority, we are
not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Hence, the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J)
NVMEWADA/35
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:31:58 IST 2026
