Facts of the Case
In W.P.(C)‑16906/2025 and connected matters, the petitioners —
A and T Security Services Pvt Ltd and its directors, including Tejvir
Malik, Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Vivek Kumar — challenged
orders of the GST authorities relating to penalty and related adjudication
proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioners operated a security services business and held
a GST registration, which had been previously cancelled on account of alleged
non‑filing of returns. After restoration of the GST registration by way of
appeal order on deposit and compliance undertaking, the department issued a
further show cause notice on the ground of alleged fraudulent availment of
Input Tax Credit (ITC) on 31st July 2024.
A reply was filed to that SCN, and a personal hearing was conducted. The GST officer passed an order dated 31st January 2025, creating a demand under Section 122 of the CGST/SGST Act, imposing penalties. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalties and confirmed them on 16th May 2025.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the GST adjudicating and appellate authorities erred in concluding
liability for penalty without considering substantial payments already
made by the petitioners towards tax and related liabilities.
- Whether
the petitioners should be afforded opportunity to file appeal before the
GST Appellate Tribunal without the requirement of pre‑deposit of any
amount.
- Whether the orders suffer from procedural and substantive error warranting judicial interference.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners — Mr. A.K. Babbar and Ms.
Ishmat Kaur — submitted that a significant sum of Rs. 2,01,20,299/‑ had
already been paid by the petitioners prior to the issuance of the show cause
notice on 31st July 2024.
This crucial fact was not considered either by the adjudicating authority or by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was argued that this omission led to unjust confirmation of the penalty, and thus the orders ought to be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Akshay Amritanshu and other counsel, conceded that the aspect of substantial payment made by the petitioner did not appear to have been considered in the impugned appellate order dated 16th May 2025. However, no clear defense was advanced to negate the relevance of that fact.
Court’s Order / Findings
The Delhi High Court (Justice Prathiba M. Singh & Justice
Shail Jain) held that:
- The
payments made by the petitioners were relevant and ought to have been
considered by the adjudicating as well as appellate authorities.
- The
appellate order is prima facie affected by non‑consideration of material
facts.
- Given
that the GST Appellate Tribunal was now constituted and was accepting
appeals, the petitioners should be permitted to allege their grievances at
the Tribunal level.
- The petitioners were allowed to file their appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal without payment of any pre‑deposit if lodged by 25th December 2025.
Important Clarifications
- The
judgment confirmed that non‑consideration of material facts by the
adjudicating authority and appellate body constitutes an error warranting
judicial intervention.
- The
High Court underscored the importance of allowing appeals before the now‑functioning
GST Appellate Tribunal without penal pre‑deposit where procedural fairness
and balance of convenience so dictate.
- The direction underlined that appellate remedies ought not be foreclosed on technical grounds where substantial compliance is demonstrated.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75418112025CW169062025_175814.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment