Writs Challenging Consolidated GST Proceedings U/s 74 Dismissed; Dept. Opposes “Reading Down” Of CGST Act Provisions: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging consolidated GST proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with the department strongly defending the legislative framework and opposing attempts to “read down” statutory provisions in a manner not contemplated by Parliament. The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul has observed that “we are of the view that since this Court has consistently taken a view that consolidation of the notices for various financial years is very much permitted, we see no reason to take a different view than the view which is already consistently expressed by this Court. Merely, because the other High Courts i.e., Madras High Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the opinion of the petitioner have taken a different view that would not persuade us to deviate from the view which has already been expressed in the aforesaid judgment.” BUY NOW : E-Magzine: Single SCN or Composite Assessment Order for Multiple Tax Periods According to Senior Standing Counsel Anurag Ojha, the petitions were heard together as they involved a common legal issue relating to consolidation of tax periods under GST adjudication proceedings. The department argued that there is no prohibition under the CGST Act, 2017 against consolidation of proceedings for multiple tax periods. It was contended that while each tax period may constitute an independent block, the statute nowhere declares that consolidation of such blocks is impermissible. During the hearing, the department relied heavily on earlier Delhi High Court decisions including Vallabh Textile and Ambica, where similar challenges were rejected. The department emphasized that there was no divergence of judicial opinion within the Delhi High Court unlike the position before the Bombay High Court in Rollmet v. Union of India, where conflicting views had reportedly resulted in reference to a larger bench. The department further argued that judicial consistency must prevail where a High Court has consistently adopted one view. Referring to the famous observation of former US Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis, the department submitted before the Court that “it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.” A significant constitutional argument was also advanced by thedepartment against the challenge to Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the CGST Act. According to the submissions recorded in the Notes on Proceedings, the petitioners failed to satisfy the twin constitutional tests of legislative competence and vires. The department contended that commercial inconvenience or taxpayers’ preferences regarding business structuring cannot form the basis of a constitutional challenge. The Dept. additionally opposed the petitioners’ plea seeking “reading down” of statutory provisions. It was argued that the petitions were effectively attempting to “read in” words and restrictions which do not exist in the statute. Reliance was placed on constitutional jurisprudence governing the doctrine of reading down, including In Re: Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 and Cellular Operators Association of India v. Union of India. According to the Dept.’s submissions, reading down is permissible only where a statutory provision is capable of multiple meanings and a restrictive interpretation is necessary to save its constitutionality. It was argued that courts cannot evolve entirely new meanings or add limitations absent in the legislative text. The proceedings also witnessed arguments concerning another connected matter, Aparna, where the petitioners had allegedly approached the Supreme Court directly before moving the Delhi High Court. The Dept. described the litigation strategy as “chance litigation” and argued that no fundamental right violation could arise merely from consolidation of tax years. The Dept. further informed the Court that even notices had not yet been issued in the connected matter and questioned the maintainability of repeated litigation attempts involving “to and fro” movements between constitutional courts. Eventually, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions and disposed of the matters in favour of the Dept., subject to uploaded formal orders. Case Details Case Title: JBN Impex Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors. Citation: JURISHOUR-1108-HC-2026(DEL) Case No.: W.P.(C) 5814/2026 & CM APPL. 28621/2026, CM APPL. 28622/2026 Date: 29.04.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Abhishek Garg Counsel For Respondent: Shlok Chandra, Senior Standing Counsel for CGST Click Here To Read Order

Writs Challenging Consolidated GST Proceedings U/s 74 Dismissed; Dept. Opposes “Reading Down” Of CGST Act Provisions: Delhi HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Refund Can’t Be Denied Merely Because Deposit Made During Investigation Was Not Marked ‘Under Protest’: CESTAT

Customs Dept. Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data: CESTAT

Profit Margin on Sale of Imported Gold Bullion Not Taxable as ‘Consignment Agent’ Service: CESTAT

Rule 10A Valuation Can’t Apply to Job-Worked Goods Used in Works Contracts: CESTAT

More like this

Refund Can’t Be Denied Merely Because Deposit Made During Investigation Was Not Marked ‘Under Protest’: CESTAT

Customs Dept. Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data: CESTAT

Profit Margin on Sale of Imported Gold Bullion Not Taxable as ‘Consignment Agent’ Service: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories