GST Fraud Writ Kept Under Objections Without Removing Defects: Delhi HC Directs Statutory Appeal Without Limitation Bar

The Delhi High Court has noted that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) fraud writ was kept under objections for 3 months without removing defects and directed the assessee to file statutory appeal without limitation bar. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that the matter was kept under objections without removing defects for three months. Giving this benefit of doubt to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is given an opportunity to file an appeal challenging the order. If the appeal is filed in accordance with law by 31st January, 2026, the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi Zonal Unit had received intelligence in respect of availment of ineligible CENVAT Credit by raising of fraudulent invoices showing sale of goods such as PVC Resin SP. On the basis of the intelligence, searches were carried out at various premises including one of M/s Saraswati Printers dated 21st December, 2020. During the investigation, statements were recorded from various individuals, including the petitioner, who was associated with a firm allegedly involved in issuing invoices without actual movement of goods. According to the investigation record, the petitioner admitted to issuing such invoices on request and receiving commission, with payments being routed back in cash after deduction of commission. The Department further highlighted discrepancies in transport details, noting that vehicle numbers mentioned in invoices were of light commercial vehicles incapable of carrying the quantities claimed, strengthening the allegation of paper transactions A show cause notice was issued in May 2021. While the petitioner sought copies of relied-upon documents through emails, no substantive reply on merits was filed, nor was there any retraction of the statement recorded during the investigation. The adjudicating authority noted that despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to participate meaningfully in the proceedings. Based on the uncontroverted material on record, including the petitioner’s own statement, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order imposing penalty. The bench noted that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings and yet chose not to rebut the allegations or file a reply before the adjudicating authority. The Court held that reliance on submissions made by other co-noticees could not rescue the petitioner, particularly when he had failed to place his own defence on record. The Bench emphasised that cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit or CENVAT credit typically involve intricate factual inquiries, voluminous evidence, and complex transaction trails. Such matters, the Court held, are not suited for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that while the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. None of these exceptions were found to be applicable in the present case. The High Court granted the petitioner limited relief by permitting him to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed by 31 January 2026 along with the mandatory pre-deposit, it shall be decided on merits and not rejected on the ground of limitation. The Court clarified that its observations would not bind the appellate authority, which would be free to adjudicate the matter independently in accordance with law. Case Details Case Title: Navneet Bansal Versus Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North Case No.: W.P.(C) 4723/2025& CM APPL. 21719/2025 Date: 18/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Akshat Vachher Counsel For Respondent: Anushree Narain Click Here To Read Order Read More: ITC To Purchaser Can’t Be Denied Citing Supplier’s Retrospective GST Registration Cancellation: Calcutta HC

GST Fraud Writ Kept Under Objections Without Removing Defects: Delhi HC Directs Statutory Appeal Without Limitation Bar

Membership Required

Latest articles

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

Procedural Delay Should Not Defeat Scheme Benefits: CESTAT Directs Manual Processing of SVLDRS Discharge Certificate

More like this

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

About us

Company

Categories