The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by M/s Yamini Bearing Enterprises, challenging a GST adjudication order that raised demands relating to alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), and has directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead. The Court has permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the adjudication order by January 15, 2026, clarifying that any such appeal shall be decided on merits and not dismissed on limitation grounds.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar ruled that High Courts should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST fraud investigations and misuse of ITC, holding that such disputes must undergo statutory adjudication and appellate review.
The petitioner, Inder Bahadur Singh (proprietor of M/s Yamini Bearing Enterprises), approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 1 February 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North. The order imposed tax demands relating to alleged wrongful ITC availment amounting to ₹4,39,036 (CGST ₹2,19,518 and SGST ₹2,19,518).
The dispute stems from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 29 July 2024 in connection with fraudulent ITC transactions involving 87 suspicious e-way bills issued by M/s Mishra Enterprises worth more than ₹19.71 crore. The department alleged that the petitioner was a beneficiary of ITC from 10 non-existent firms, including Rolta Industries, Ayka International and Renee Overseas
The petitioner argued that no SCN had been issued to him and therefore the impugned order was illegal. However, the GST department demonstrated that the SCN was emailed on 1 August 2024 at 10:24 AM to the registered email address yaminibearing@gmail.com, and was also uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner had even filed a reply dated 10 August 2024, which was produced during the hearing.
The Court also noted an inadvertent error in the DRC-07 notice where the financial year was mentioned incorrectly as 2017-18 instead of 2023-24, but held that such a clerical error could not invalidate the adjudication order.
The Court reiterated that matters involving allegations of fraudulent ITC and non-existent entities require detailed examination of evidence and are not suitable for writ relief.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Commercial Steel Limited, the Bench emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not replace the statutory appellate mechanism unless exceptional conditions exist, such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner may file an appeal by January 15, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Inder Bahadur Singh Versus Additional Commissioner Ward 24-Zone 1
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15853/2025 & CM APPL. 64911/2025
Date: 02/12/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Wahaj Ahmad Khan
Counsel For Respondent: Ruchesh Sinha
