The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain writ petition in fake GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) cases.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has refused to entertain a writ petition which had challenged a demand order issued by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Department, Delhi North, over alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC). The Court directed the firm to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, by November 30, 2025.
According to the CGST Department’s investigation, notices were issued to 670 firms allegedly involved in fake invoicing through non-existent entities operating from Sita Ram Bazar and Naya Bazar in Delhi. The probe revealed that 55 bogus supplier firms had passed on inadmissible ITC worth over ₹553 crore to nearly 5,962 beneficiary firms, including R Gupta Metal Store, which appeared at serial number 209 in the list.
Following the investigation, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on August 3, 2024, against the petitioner. R Gupta Metal Store submitted its reply on October 14, 2024, claiming that its response and supporting documents were not duly considered by the adjudicating authority.
The High Court noted that cases involving alleged fraudulent ITC claims demand extensive factual scrutiny and the examination of voluminous records—tasks best suited for the appellate authorities rather than writ courts.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. (2021), Justice Singh reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
“This Court has consistently held that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, it would not be inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction, given the complex transactions and significant impact on the GST regime,” the Bench observed.
Granting limited relief, the Court allowed R Gupta Metal Store to file its appeal by November 30, 2025, along with the mandatory pre-deposit. It directed that the appeal, once filed within this period, “shall be adjudicated on merits and not treated as barred by limitation.”
The Court also permitted the petitioner to rely upon documents already filed with its earlier reply, noting that these were not discussed in detail in the adjudication order.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S R Gupta Metal Store Versus Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15841/2025, CM APPL. 64879/2025 & CM APPL. 64880/2025
Date: 31/11/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Yash Aggarwal, Aman Sinha
Counsel For Respondent: Shashank Sharma