Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Shail Jain, JJ
GIFTCO EXPORTS – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF CENTRAL TAX & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13979/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Tabassum Firdause, Mr. M. A. Ansari, Mohd. Ikram, Mr. Imran Ahmad
For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Sharma, Ms. Malika Kumari, Mr. Ashish Goyal, Mr. Anurag Singhal
Writ petitions regarding fraudulent claims of Input Tax Credit should be barred in favor of pursuing statutory remedies, affirming the principle that alternative legal avenues must be prioritized.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Challenge to three Orders-in-Original regarding Input Tax Credit - Claims of illegalities in the issuance and contents were raised, including issues of show cause notices not being served - The Court reiterated that cases involving fraudulent ITC should ideally be adjudicated through available statutory remedies rather than writ petitions. (Paras 11-14)
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Existence of alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition; however, it is to be entertained only in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice principles. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenges three distinct Orders-in-Original concerning demands related to fraudulent ITC claims, citing lack of proper notice and investigatory irregularities.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the issues raised in the petition pertain to different cases and should not be resolved in a singular writ proceeding, emphasizing the need for an appeal.
Issues: The core issue involved the maintainability of the writ petition concerning distinct fraud allegations and whether the statutory remedy suffices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the availability of appeal remedies underscores the inappropriateness of allowing a writ; procedures were accurately followed, and hence the petition was dismissed.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed, allowing for separate appeals on the orders to be filed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of disputed orders concerning itc (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding the maintainability of the petition (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court's position on jurisdiction and appeals (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion on petition dismissal (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
O R D E R
% 11.09.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 57252/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13979/2025 & CM APPL. 57251/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , inter alia, challenging three Orders-in-Original, which relates to demands arising out of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’)
that has been availed by the Petitioner.
W.P.(C)13979/2025 Page1of
4. The details of the three Orders-in Original are as under:
(i) Order-in-Original dated 29th January 2025 passed by the Prinicpal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North (hereinafter OIO-1)
(ii) Order-in-Original dated 1st February 2025 passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) CGST Delhi North (hereinafter OIO-2)
(iii) Order-in-Original dated 4th February 2025 passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) CGST Delhi North (hereinafter OIO-3)
5. Thegrounds for challenge are that, OIO-1 was passedwithout any Show Cause Notice being served to the Petitioner, neither on his registered address, nor uploaded on the GST portal of the Petitioner. OIO-2 was passed without considering the reply of the Petitioner to the Show Cause Notice dated 5th August,2024(hereinafter‘SCN-2’).OIO-3waspassedwithonlyagapofseven days between the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd January, 2025, (hereinafter ‘SCN-3) and the final order.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that all the three Orders-in- OriginalarepassedbythesameAdditionalCommissionerandtherearevarious illegalities in these orders, hence, the present writ petition is maintainable.
7. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs has already been deposited by the Petitioner with the GST Department as a pre-deposit.
8. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that multiple Orders-in-Original cannot be challenged in this manner, in the same writ petition,asthefactsituationisdifferentineachofthecases.Hefurthersubmits that these three Orders-in-Original are appealable orders, and the limitation for W.P.(C)13979/2025 Page2of filing the same has already expired.
9. A brief background of the three Orders-in-Original is set out below :
(1) OIO-1: OIO-1 was passed on 29th January 2025. The same arises out of SCN No.59/2024-25 (hereinafter SCN-1) issued to one M/s Reema Polychem Pvt. Ltd. Prior to issuance of SCN-1, an alert was received in respect of an investigation against M/s Choudhary Metals and M/s Kavita Metals operated by proprietor i.e., Mr. Laxman Chaudhary. During the investigation,itwasrevealedthat thesetwoentitieshadavailedof ITCusing invoices from non-existent firms in Delhi. Thereafter, the proprietor of these two entities was, in fact, arrested. There were a total of 23 non-existing/ fake firms and invoices were issued without actual supply of goods. An investigation into the 23 non-existing/ fake firms was conducted, and it was found that these firms had 408 recipients of ITC. The Petitioner appears at Serial No. 185 of Table-A of OIO-1. A demand has, therefore, been raised against the Petitioner.
(2) OIO-2: OIO-2 was passed on 1st February 2025. There are a total of 650 parties to whom notice has been issued. The Petitioner’s name appears at Serial No. 220 of Table-A of OIO-2. The investigation in this case had revealed that there were several fake companies and entities which had passedonfraudulentITC,allwithintheDelhiWestCommissionerate.Search warrants were issued against M/s Dev Sales Corporation, and there were a maze of firms which were found to have been incorporated for passing of ITC, without any goods or services being rendered.
(3) OIO-3: OIO-3was passedon4th Februa
