The Delhi High Court has permitted a taxpayer accused of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims to challenge GST demands on merits, while clarifying how service of orders should be effected under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act).
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain was hearing a writ petition challenging two GST adjudication orders and related demand notices. The case stems from allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to ₹173 crore involving 650 noticees.
The petitioner challenged two adjudication orders dated January 16 and February 1, 2025. The first was questioned on the ground that a consolidated show cause notice covered multiple financial years. However, the Bench noted that this issue was already settled in Ambika Traders v. Addl. Commissioner DGGSTI (2025), where the Court held that under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, notices can cover “any period” and need not be restricted to a single financial year. The nature of ITC transactions, often spanning multiple years, justifies such consolidated proceedings.
The second order was assailed as being time-barred, with the petitioner contending that it was uploaded on the GST portal after the limitation expired. While the order was dated February 1, 2025, the demand form (DRC-07) was uploaded on February 19, 2025.
The department countered that the order was communicated via email on February 4, 2025, to the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, which constituted valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Raj International v. Addl. Commissioner CGST and the Madras High Court’s ruling in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham, reiterating that service can be effected through registered email, portal upload, or speed post.
Given the large number of noticees (650) and the complexity of the case, the Bench held that a short delay in uploading the order on the GST portal does not invalidate the order. The email communication dated February 4, 2025, was deemed sufficient service.
While upholding the department’s position on service, the Court emphasized that the petitioner has an appellate remedy. It allowed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by September 30, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit. The appellate authority has been directed not to dismiss the appeal on limitation grounds and to decide it on merits.
The judgment clarifies two important aspects of GST law:
- Show cause notices and adjudication orders can span multiple financial years for ITC fraud investigations.
- Valid service under GST law includes communication to a registered email or authorized representative; delay in portal upload does not necessarily render the order void.
Case Details
Case Title: Suresh Kumar Versus Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case No.: W.P.(C) 12199/2025 & CM APPL. 49693/2025
Date: 13th August, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Rajeev Aggarwal
Counsel For Respondent: Aakarsh Srivastava
Read More: Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Order; Slams Unqualified Tax Consultants
