M/S. Dabang Dunia Publications Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Pankaj Majupuria vs The Union Of India

-1- WP-12375-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 12375 of 2025 M/S. DABANG DUNIA PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PANKAJ MAJUPURIA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 14241 of 2025 M/S RANI PRESS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR MR. JOHAR ALI PRESSWALA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14592 of 2025 M/S VINAYAKA FILTRADE PVT.LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAMESH PARIHAR Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15808 of 2025 M/S SHIMLA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR DEVENDRA DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17609 of 2025 M/S INK FRUIT THROUGH ITS PARTNER PRAVEEN AJMERA AND OTHERS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance: Shri Abhinav Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.12375/2025, 14241/2025, 15808/2025 & 17609/2025.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-2- WP-12375-2025 Shri Rabi Shankar Roy - Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14592/2025. Shri Sanyam Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No17609/2025. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Additional Solicitor General with Ms. Mital Ukani for respondent/UOI and Shri Prasanna Prasad Advocates for other respondents.

ORDER

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in all the present writ petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and disposal of all the present petitions, facts of Writ Petition No.12375 of 2025 are taken.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order-in- original dated 05.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 / Joint Commissioner, Central G.S.T. and Excise, Indore (M.P.), whereby the demand of GST amounting to Rs.151,64,38,832/- (CGST- Rs. 75,82,19,416/- and SGST- 75,82,19,416/-) and Compensation Cess amounting to Rs.1794,58,34,178/ has been confirmed against the petitioner without providing proper opportunity to defend its case.

3. The petitioner / M/s. Dabang Dunia Publications Private Limited, is a company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (now governed by the Companies Act, 2013). The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of printing, publishing, and reproduction of recorded media. It is further submitted that the petitioner is duly registered with the Registrar of Newspapers

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-3- WP-12375-2025 for India (RNI) under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (now substituted by the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023). The petitioner publishes a widely circulated daily newspaper under the name and style of "Dabang Dunia", having as many as sixteen editions printed and circulated from different parts of the country, for which separate registrations have been duly obtained from the competent authority.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and in complete disregard of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 20.05.2024 passed in W.P. No. 12326/2024 (M/s Elora Tobacco Company Limited v. Union of India and others). The petitioner submits that no adequate or reasonable opportunity was afforded to it to effectively defend its case during the course of adjudication proceedings.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of a show cause notice dated 08.06.2022 by respondent no. 3 under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging tax evasion amounting to ₹151,64,38,832/- (CGST and SGST) along with compensation cess of ₹1794,58,34,178/-, jointly and severally with Elora Tobacco and its associates. The case of the respondents is premised on allegations that M/s Elora Tobacco was engaged in clandestine manufacture and supply of cigarettes and that the petitioner, being allegedly connected, facilitated laundering of proceeds through inflated newspaper circulation figures and issuance of fictitious advertisement invoices.

6. The petitioner's case is that the entire proceedings are founded upon third-party statements and documents seized during search

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-4- WP-12375-2025 operations, many of which were not relied upon in the show cause notice. Despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to provide the petitioner with copies of all non-relied upon documents and denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements form the basis of the allegations. The petitioner submitted a preliminary reply dated 11.07.2022 seeking return of original non-relied upon documents and an opportunity for cross-examination; however, no such relief was granted. Meanwhile, M/s Elora Tobacco filed a writ petition before this Court seeking similar reliefs, which was allowed by order dated 20.05.2024, directing return of documents and permitting cross- examination. The said order attained finality upon dismissal of the review petition on 30.08.2024 and was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which further directed return of non-relied upon documents to enable filing of reply.

7. Despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the respondents failed to extend the same reliefs to the petitioner, notwithstanding repeated representations made by the petitioner during the pendency of proceedings. The adjudicating authority, while acknowledging such requests, rejected the same on the ground that documentary evidence was sufficient and that cross-examination was not required. It is the petitioner's case that the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice by denying access to relevant documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. It is further contended that the adjudication against the petitioner has been concluded even in the absence of any final determination against the principal noticee, namely M/s Elora Tobacco, thereby rendering the proceedings arbitrary and legally untenable.

8. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the impugned adjudication

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-5- WP-12375-2025 order as being contrary to law, violative of binding judicial precedents, and in breach of principles of natural justice, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.2 demanding the GST on the basis of show cause notice dated 08.06.2022, which was issued against 22 noticees including the present petitioners. They argued that the similar notice was issued by one of the noticee Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. (supra) seeking a direction to return of not used documents and right to cross-examination. The said petition was allowed by order dated 20.05.2024 upholding the noticee's right to seek return of unrelied documents and also to give a right of cross-examination. The department sought a review of the said order in Review Petition No.6825/2024. The said review petition was also dismissed on 30.08.2024, holding that no case is made out for review. The order passed by this court in the case of Elora (supra) was affirmed by the Apex Court.

10. Being aggrieved by the said order in the writ as well as against the order passed in review, the department preferred SLP (Civil) Diary No.55501/2024.

11. After the said order, the petitioner filed letters and demanded the return of the documents and also asked for show cause notice and also asked for right to cross-examination. The reply was filed on 29.01.2025. However, the authority without considering the same passed the impugned order stating that the judgment passed in the case of Elora (supra) against one of the noticees would not apply to the case of the petitioners as the said order was only qua writ petitioner and not for all the noticees. The petitioner argued that since the impugned order is

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-6- WP-12375-2025 arbitrary as the authority being quasi-judicial authority ought to have followed the directions passed in respect of one of the noticees. Even otherwise, the petitioner is entitled for return of the original documents and also opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, which is enshrined in the Doctrine of Principle of Natural Justice.

12. In support of their submission, they relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2016) 15 SCC 785, Dharmpal Satyapal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 519, MP State Agro Industries Development Corporation and Anor. Vs. Jahan Khan, AIR 2007 SC 3153, and judgment passed by this Court in the case of Alok Kumar Choubey Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.1874/2019.

13. They further argued that the adjudicatory authority while passing the impugned order had relied on the circular issued by CBIC dated 10.03.2017 would not apply to the case of the petitioners as the same was prior to coming into effect of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.07.2017.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the adjudicatory authority has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners regarding applicability of the judgment passed in the case of Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. (supra) as the same was not in respect of one of the noticees because the same was the judgment in personam and not the judgment in rem. They further argued that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under section 107 of the Act. It is further argued that the said noticees had approached the High Court prior to passing of the order of demand whereas, the petitioners have filed these petitions after passing of the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-7- WP-12375-2025 order. They relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court in the cases of State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, SS Enterprises VS. Union of India passed in WP No.43262/2025, Titaghur Paper Mills Co.Ltd Vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433, Assistant Commissioner of Stte Tax Vs. Commercial Steel Ltd passed in Civil Appeal No.5121/2021, M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors passed in Civil Appeal No.1155/2021, AC Central Excise West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd, 1985 (19) ELT 22(SC), Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan (2006) 12 SCC 28, Hameed Kunju Vs. Nizam (2017) 8 SCC 611, Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd Vs. State of UP and Ors (2016) 13 SCC 305, SS Enterprises Vs Union of India passed in SLP No.35814/2025, M/s Elora Tobacco Co.Ltd Vs. Union of India and Ors passed in WP No.14694/2025, M/s Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. Union of India passed in SLP (C) No.31230/2025, Vallabh Textiles Vs. Additional Commissioner 147 GSTR 472 (Delhi), Vallabh Textiles Vs. Additional Commissioner passed in SLP

(c)No.13670/2025, Mohammad Fariz and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Cochin 2018(18) GSTL 415(Ker), Stalin Joseph Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2021 (377) ELT 13 (Mad), Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2022) 1 Centax 91(bom), Stalin Joseph Vs. Commissioner of Customs affirmed by Supreme Court of India 2022 (381) ELT A37 (SC), KL Tripathi VS SBI (1984) 1 SCC 43, Telestar Travels Pvt Ltd Vs. SEBI (2013) 9 SCC 549.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

15. We would like to address on the objection regarding alternative remedy of appeal. It is clear that there is no absolute bar for exercising the writ jurisdiction, even if there is alternative remedy of appeal

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-8- WP-12375-2025 available. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs.Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 it has been held that under the following circumstances, the writ can be entertained by the High Court:-

"(i) Where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;

(ii) Where there is violation of principles of natural justice.

(iii) Where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."

16. We are inclined to entertain this petition on two grounds:-

(i) The question involved is that whether the order passed in respect of one of the noticees of the same notice i.e. M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. would apply to the present case or not ?

(ii) Whether the denial of cross-examination is in violation of principle of natural justice or not ?

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order with careful scanning. We find distinguishing case of the petitioner, the following reasons have been given by the adjudicating authority:-

"However, M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. was the sole petitioner in the above referred Writ Petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court M.P. Bench at Indore, and there was no specific Order affecting the other 21 Noticees in the SCN dated 08.06.2022. The Hon'ble High Court M.P. Bench at Indore has neither addressed regarding the adjudication of these other 21 Noticees nor issued any Stay Order. Thus, other 21 Noticees were not entitled to benefit of Stay period as well as other directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court M.P. Bench at Indore is said Order dated 20.05.2024.

Therefore, the last date of issuance of Adjudication Order in respect of other 21 Noticees is 06.02.2025 as the period involved in the Show Cause Notice is FY 2017-18 onwards as per provisions contained under Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 06/2020 Central Tax dated 03.02.2020. Also, Separate GST-DRC-01 were issued to other 21 Noticees regarding Tax/GST demand, Interest or Penalty under CGST Act, 2017 and Rules made thereof."

18. So far the contention of the respondent regarding that the order passed by this Court in the case of Elora (supra) has to be read as judgment 'in personam' and not 'judgment in rem', we are not unable to accept the same. So far the Doctrine of right in rem and right in

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-9- WP-12375-2025 personam are concerned, the law is no longer res-integra. It is a conceptual jurisprudence about the rights. The rights in rem and right in personam and judgment in rem and judgment in personam have been clearly discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Booz Allenand Hamilton Inc/ Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd and Ors reported in (2011) 5 SCC 532, in which it has been held that a right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large, as contrasted from a right in personam which is an interest protected solely against specific individual. Correspondingly, the judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished from a judgment against a thing, right or status, and judgment in rem refers to judgment that determines status or condition of property which operates directly on the property itself. The said view has been further considered and explained in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs. Regency Mahavir Properites and Ors reported in (2021) 4 SCC 786.

19. According to us, the issue raised by the respondent regarding right in personam and right in rem and also about the judgments would not attract in the present case, therefore, the judgments placed by the counsel for the respondents have no relevance. The question before us is about the judicial discipline and prosperity of a quasi judicial authority. Once the similar show cause notice in respect of one of the 22 noticees i.e. Elora Tobacco was challenged before this court on two grounds, ie. the right to cross-examine of the witnesses whichever proposes to be cited by the department and also a direction to return all unrelied documents was accepted and the petition was allowed upholding the notices right to seek return of unrelied documents and also to give right to cross-examine and the similar notice was quashed and the matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh by giving

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-10- WP-12375-2025 right of cross-examine and return all unrelied documents. Then the quasi judicial authority was wholly unjustified in holding that the said order would not be applicable to the case of other notices. We are of the view that such a direction was facet of 'principle of natural justice' which ought to have been followed by quasi judicial authority.

20. We do not accept the reasoning given by the assessing authority that the order passed by this Court in the case of Elora (supra) was only in respect of one of the noticee and not in respect of other noticees. Even otherwise, the judicial authority is bound to follow the doctrine of Judicial Discipline and Properity. Once the High Court has held in respect of one of the noticee for giving opportunity of cross-examine and also return of the documents, the authority ought to have followed the same.

21. In view of the aforesaid, the petition nos.12375/2025, 14241/2025, 14592/2025, 15808/2025 are allowed and the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 is quashed. The matters are remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order. The respondents shall hand over all the unrelied documents to the petitioners which have been seized by them and the petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh reply upon receipt of the original document within the period of 30 days from today. The respondents shall adjudicate the case of the petitioners on its own merits after filing of the fresh reply and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners shall have the right to cross-examine the witnesses whose evidence has been recorded by the impugned show cause notice at appropriate stage in adjudication proceedings and the petitioners shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application at appropriate stage for exercising the said rights in the course of being affected personal hearing. It is made clear that this Court

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9910

-11- WP-12375-2025 has not expressed anything on the merits of the case.

WRIT PETITION No. 17609 of 2025 So far WP No.17609/2025 is concerned, the respondents have taken a specific stand that in pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner did not appear before the authority. He did not make any application for return of original unrelied documents and also not making prayer for cross-examination of the witnesses. We asked a specific question in this regard to the counsel for the petitioner. He could not point out that the petitioner had appear before the adjudicating authority and had made any application for demand of cross- examination of the witnesses and return of unrelied documents.

In view of the aforesaid, we find that WP No.17609/2025 has no merit, hence dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the impugned order by resorting to the remedy available to him in accordance with law under the act.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE JUDGE sourabh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:50:50