The Delhi High Court has issued the notice on writ petition which raises the issue whether CGST issue show cause notice and pass order under section 74 of the CGST Act on issue already examined by the audit team.
The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul has issued notice in a writ petition filed by Apsom Infotex Limited challenging the reopening of audit findings through a corrigendum beyond the prescribed time limits.
The dispute arises from an audit conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the financial years 2017–2021. During the audit, authorities observed that the taxpayer had allegedly availed and utilized excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-3B compared to what was available in GSTR-2A.
As per the audit report dated May 19, 2023, the discrepancy involved: tax demand of ₹84,216 (CGST + SGST), interest of ₹22,738, penalty of ₹12,632 and total liability: ₹1,19,587
Importantly, the taxpayer accepted the audit findings and voluntarily deposited the amount through Form DRC-03 on May 12, 2023.
Apsom Infotex has contended that once the audit proceedings were concluded and the liability discharged, the department cannot subsequently issue a corrigendum to reopen or expand the scope of the audit—particularly beyond the statutory limitation period.
The petitioner has relied on section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, arguing that once proceedings are undertaken by one authority, parallel or repeated proceedings are not permissible. The principle of limitation, asserting that reopening a concluded audit after a significant lapse of time is legally untenable.
The High Court, after hearing initial submissions, issued notice to the respondent (Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi). The standing counsel for the tax department accepted notice on behalf of the respondent.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 23, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Apsom Infotex Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner CGST Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4361/2026 & CM APPL. 21235/2026, CM APPL. 21236/2026
Date: 06.04.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Aditya Singla, SSC (CBIC)
