Facts of the Case

  1. A consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 30th July 2021 alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹10.70 crores by the Petitioner through bogus invoices from fictitious firms without actual supply of goods.
  2. The Petitioner responded to the SCN with detailed replies on 6th September 2021 and 12th December 2023.
  3. Impugned Order dated 1st January 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi‑East confirmed huge ITC demands under Section 74 CGST Act along with interest under Section 50 and penalties.
  4. Separately, a Provisional Attachment Order dated 21st November 2023 attached bank accounts and immovable property of the Petitioner under Section 83 CGST Act. 

Issues Involved

A. Validity of Consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years
Whether Section 74 CGST Act permits issuing a single consolidated SCN spanning multiple tax periods/financial years without separate notices.

B. Demand and Penalty Confirmation
Whether the impugned order correctly adjudicated demand, interest and penalties under Sections 74, 50 and 122(3) CGST Act.

C. Attachment Validity
Whether provisional attachment of property and bank accounts was legally sustainable under Section 83 CGST Act.

D. Limitation Issues
Whether remedies by way of statutory appeal were time‑barred, and whether writ petitions were maintainable. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The SCN covered multiple financial years and was not legally sustainable.
  • Improper issuance of demand under Rule 142 CGST Rules.
  • Impugned order failed to duly address the Petitioner’s detailed replies.
  • Provisional attachment was unlawful and unjustified.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Section 74 CGST Act expressly empowers issuance of notices covering any period, including multiple tax periods, to determine fraudulent ITC.
  • The demands, interest and penalties were correctly computed and confirmed under statutory provisions.
  • Provisional attachment was issued in exercise of powers under Section 83 CGST Act.
  • Remedies lay through statutory appeal and not writ jurisdiction. 

Court Order / Findings

Consolidated SCN Validity: The Court upheld that consolidated SCNs covering more than one financial year are permissible under Section 74 CGST Act. Periods may be grouped where fraud or willful misstatement is involved, as the wording “for any period” does not confine the notice to a single year. Reliance placed on Ambika Traders v Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North (504 DHC 2025).

Maintainability: While other grounds raised needed remedy via statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act, the writ petition was allowed limited relief in terms of enabling filing of appeal with pre‑deposit without being dismissed for delay.

Attachment Set Aside: Communications relating to attachment of bank accounts and immovable property were set aside; provisional attachment over one year old was held infructuous. 

Important Clarifications from Judgment

Consolidated SCN: Allowed where fraud and bogus ITC spanning multiple tax periods is found; statute contemplates “periods” and not just individual years.

Appeal Rights: Writs challenging adjudication orders must generally be preceded by statutory appeals; however, limitation benefit may be granted where writ was filed within limitation period.

Attachment Law: A provisional attachment under Section 83 CGST Act lapses after one year unless extended or replaced; mere continuation of proceedings does not revive it.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75411112025CW44552025_104403.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.