The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s decision refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand of ₹42.66 lakh, reiterating the importance of availing the statutory appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
The Supreme Court granted the petitioner additional time to pursue the statutory remedy and extended the limitation period for filing the appeal up to October 16, 2026. The proceedings were accordingly disposed of.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)
Dispute Over GST ITC Demand
The matter originated from proceedings under the GST law concerning an alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of Input Tax Credit.
According to the case background, GST authorities had initiated proceedings after receiving an alert alleging fraudulent availment of ITC through a non-existent supplier, M/s Advanta Sales.
A show cause notice dated June 28, 2025, was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act in relation to FY 2018–19. The notice alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC.
The petitioner disputed the allegations and contended that no transactions involving the alleged supplier had taken place during FY 2018–19.
Corrigendum Expanded Proceedings to Another Financial Year
During the adjudication proceedings, the department issued a corrigendum that also referred to FY 2019–20.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the corrigendum, contending that the department had effectively expanded the original show cause notice by introducing an additional financial year.
According to the petitioner, such an expansion could not be treated as a mere correction of an error. It was argued that introducing a new financial year amounted to initiation of fresh proceedings, which could not be undertaken through a corrigendum.
The petitioner also contended that the proceedings relating to FY 2019–20 were barred by limitation and that the requirements relating to the summary in Form GST DRC-01 had not been complied with.
Department Defended Corrigendum as Correction of Error
The tax department, on the other hand, maintained that the corrigendum merely corrected a typographical or inadvertent error concerning the relevant financial year.
It was argued that the corrigendum did not introduce any new transaction or create a fresh liability. The department also pointed out that the petitioner had received opportunities of hearing both before and after issuance of the corrigendum.
The department further opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Delhi High Court Declined to Examine Merits in Writ Jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court had considered the challenge to the corrigendum and the resulting demand but declined to examine the substantive issues in writ jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the questions raised by the petitioner, including whether the corrigendum went beyond the permissible scope of rectification and whether the proceedings for FY 2019–20 were time-barred, would require examination of facts and evidence.
The Court therefore considered the statutory appellate mechanism to be the appropriate forum for adjudicating those issues.
The High Court relied upon the established principle that although the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.
Issues Involving Sections 160 and 161 of CGST Act
A significant aspect of the dispute concerned Sections 160 and 161 of the CGST Act, which deal with the validity of proceedings and rectification of errors apparent from the record.
The petitioner argued that the corrigendum exceeded the limited scope of rectification contemplated under Section 161 because it allegedly introduced a new financial year and therefore created a substantive alteration to the proceedings.
Whether the department had merely corrected an inadvertent error or had effectively initiated proceedings for a different period was, however, considered a matter requiring examination of the underlying facts and records.
The High Court consequently left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Supreme Court Declines to Interfere With High Court Order
The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 51495/2026.
The Supreme Court record identifies the petitioner as Manpar Icon Technologies and the respondents as the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division and another. The SLP arose out of the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated April 13, 2026, in W.P.(C) No. 1993/2026.
The matter was heard on September 18, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
The Supreme Court recorded that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the Delhi High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
Thus, the Supreme Court did not adjudicate the substantive controversy concerning the validity of the corrigendum, limitation, or the underlying ITC demand. Instead, it endorsed the High Court’s approach of requiring the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate mechanism.
Supreme Court Grants Additional Time to File Appeal
While declining to interfere with the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court provided relief concerning limitation.
The Court specifically extended the period of limitation up to October 16, 2026, enabling the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy.
This direction ensures that the petitioner is not deprived of the appellate remedy merely because the writ proceedings had been pursued before the High Court.
The Supreme Court thereafter disposed of the Special Leave Petition, with pending applications, if any, also standing disposed of.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Management, Technical Services Rendered From China Not Taxable as FTS Under India-China DTAA: ITAT
