Time Limit To File Statutory Appeal In Fraudulent ITC Availment : SC Refuses to Entertain Assessee's Writ

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order dismissing writ petitions related to the extended the time to file a statutory appeal till March 1, 2026 in a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment case. The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed that there was no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated December 5, 2025. The Court, however, granted limited relief by extending the timeline for filing the statutory appeal as provided in paragraph 23 of the High Court’s order. Subject to this extension, the SLP was dismissed. Background: Allegations of Fraudulent ITC and Fake Invoicing The matter arose from four writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court challenging various Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and Orders-in-Original issued by CGST authorities in August 2024 and January 2025. The proceedings were initiated based on intelligence gathered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), alleging that the petitioners had availed ITC through bogus transactions and fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The Department alleged that certain entities connected with the petitioners were non-existent, non-functional, or bogus firms, and were part of a larger network engaged in fraudulent ITC claims. In one of the petitions, the primary contention raised by the petitioner was that its reply had not been considered and that no personal hearing had been granted. However, the adjudicating authority recorded that no explanation had been submitted within the stipulated time and that despite being granted multiple opportunities for personal hearing on November 4, November 18, and December 3, 2024, neither the petitioner nor its authorized representatives appeared. The petitioner contended that an interim reply seeking relied-upon documents (RUDs) had been filed on November 20, 2024. Upon perusal, the High Court noted that the reply largely sought documents and did not substantively deal with the merits of the allegations. In the connected matters, the authorities alleged that multiple exporters and suppliers were operating from the same address, invoices were signed by the same individual, and searches conducted by the Anti-Evasion Branch revealed issuance of goods-less invoices. It was further alleged that a key individual associated with the entities had floated or operated various family-run or employee-named firms to generate fake ITC invoices, enabling fraudulent GST refunds. Delhi High Court’s Findings: Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate in Fraudulent ITC Cases The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain declined to entertain the writ petitions, holding that the issues involved complex factual determinations, including examination of interlinked entities, promoters, addresses, and transaction trails—matters unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that cases involving alleged fraudulent availment of ITC typically require detailed factual analysis and scrutiny of voluminous evidence, which is better suited for the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited (2021), the High Court reiterated that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, such jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances—such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. None of these exceptions, the Court held, were established in the present case. The Court also underscored the larger systemic implications of ITC fraud, observing that misuse of Section 16 of the CGST Act by non-existent or shell entities could cause serious damage to the GST regime and public exchequer. It cautioned that writ courts ought not to be used to bypass statutory appellate forums, especially in matters involving serious allegations of tax fraud. Nevertheless, considering the petitioner’s claim that its reply may not have been considered, the High Court granted liberty to file an appeal by February 1, 2026, with the requisite pre-deposit, and directed that such appeal should not be rejected on limitation grounds. Supreme Court’s Order: Limited Relief by Way of Time Extension Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the High Court’s refusal to entertain the writ petition. However, the apex court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s reasoning and dismissal of the writ petitions. At the same time, acknowledging the procedural aspect, the Supreme Court extended the time for filing the statutory appeal up to March 1, 2026. All pending applications were disposed of. Case Details Case Title: M/S C L Products (India) Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner CGST (Delhi West) Commissionerate Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 4185/2026 Date: 09-02-2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Ajay Choudhary, AOR Counsel For Respondent: None Click Here To Read Order

Time Limit To File Statutory Appeal In Fraudulent ITC Availment : SC Refuses to Entertain Assessee’s Writ

Membership Required

Latest articles

No Service Tax On Payments Made To Protection And Indemnity Club For Mutual Insurance Cover: CESTAT

Service Tax Demand on Commission Paid to Foreign Ship Brokers Quashed Citing Defective SCN: CESTAT

Appellate Authority Can’t Direct Re-Examination of Refund Limitation When Timeliness Was Never Disputed by Dept.: CESTAT

Manufacturing Costs Of Other Items, Administrative Overheads Can’t Be Included In Production Cost For Valuation Of Goods Transferred To Sister Units: CESTAT

More like this

No Service Tax On Payments Made To Protection And Indemnity Club For Mutual Insurance Cover: CESTAT

Service Tax Demand on Commission Paid to Foreign Ship Brokers Quashed Citing Defective SCN: CESTAT

Appellate Authority Can’t Direct Re-Examination of Refund Limitation When Timeliness Was Never Disputed by Dept.: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories