$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9187/2025& CM APPL. 38985/2025 M/S CL INTERNATIONAL & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ramakant Gaur, Ms Sneha Arya, Ms Harshi Gaur, Ms Meenakshi Sahu, Ms. RoopiniNandam, Ms. Sobiya Manzoor, Advs.

versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX (DELHI WEST)

NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC-CBIC, Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia, Adv;

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filled by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original dated 31st January, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax (Delhi West). The Petitioner further challenges the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 2nd August, 2024.

3. The impugned SCN and order relate to intelligence which was gathered by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DGGI’), in respect of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’)

availed through bogus transactions and fake invoicing without actual supply of goods.

4. The allegations in the impugned order would show that there were various connected entities namely C.L. Products India Private Limited along with M/s Gauri Global Exports & Trading and M/s Modern Bazar, etc. Moreover, a scrutiny of the registration details of these entities and the returns which were filed had revealed to the Department that the entire ITC was not admissible as they were non-existing, non-functional and bogus firms.

5. The grievance of Mr. Ramakant Gaur, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner in the present petition is that the RUDs were not provided to the Petitioner and the non-RUDs were not returned.

6. However, a reply to the SCN was filed and the same was even set out in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the submissions made therein are not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. The question in the case is that there needs to be a factual consideration of various entities, their promoters, directors, addresses and their manner in which they are connected to each other. This cannot be done so in writ jurisdiction.

8. Moreover, the maze of transactions also is such that the Petitioner ought to avail of its appellate remedies. The investigation which was conducted would show that the premises were also searched.

9. This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is routinely seen in such cases that there are complex transactions involved which require factual analysis and consideration of voluminous evidence, as also the detailed orders passed after investigation by the Department. In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioner, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal.

10. It would be relevant to refer to some of the cases which have been decided by the Supreme Court as also by this Court on these aspects. The Supreme Court in the context of CGST Act, has, in Civil Appeal No. 5121/2021 dated 3rd September, 2021 titled ‘The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited’, has held as under:

“11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a chall