Facts of the Case (Professional Language)

The petitioner, M/s. Ashish Enterprises through its Proprietor Shri Ashish Gupta, challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 2nd August 2024 and an Order‑in‑Original dated 22nd January 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East. The adjudicating authority had disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹1,06,93,571/‑ and imposed an equal penalty. The proceedings stemmed from an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, into alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ITC by various entities linked to M/s. Akshat International, New Delhi. During the investigation, 32 fake entities allegedly floated by a chartered accountant were discovered and the petitioner was found to have availed fake ITC from those entities. The impugned notice covered multiple financial years. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years was permissible under the CGST Act?
  2. Whether the impugned order disallowing ITC and imposing penalty was valid?
  3. Whether proceedings could be revived or continued after a similar proceeding was reportedly dropped by the Delhi GST Department?
  4. Whether the petitioner’s reply was duly considered by the adjudicating authority? 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Professional)

The petitioner contended that:

  • The show cause notice was invalid as it covered multiple financial years, contrary to statutory mandates.
  • The Delhi GST Department had earlier dropped proceedings on the same subject matter, so the CGST action should not be entertained.
  • The impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner’s reply. 

Respondent’s Arguments (Professional)

The respondents defended the issuance of a consolidated show cause notice across financial years, relying on provisions of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, which allow notices “for any period” and “for such periods” where fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC is alleged. They argued that analyzing multiple years was essential to establish fraudulent patterns of ITC availment. 

Court Order / Findings (Professional)

The Delhi High Court (DB) — Justices Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain held that:

  • This Court has previously considered the issue and held that a consolidated SCN covering multiple periods is permissible under Sections 73(3), 73(4), 74(3) and 74(4) (use of “period” versus “financial year”), especially in cases of fraud‑related ITC. The reasoning reflects that fraudulent ITC cannot usually be established without connecting transactions spanning fiscal boundaries, hence a consolidated notice is justified.
  • The language in the Act supports consolidated action for periods where fraudulent availment is alleged, and therefore the issuance and contents of the impugned notice and order are not contrary to law.
  • The impugned order disallowing ITC and imposing penalty did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction at this stage.
  • The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal with requisite pre‑deposit before the appellate authority by 31st October 2025, even if beyond limitation, to ensure adjudication on merits. 

Important Clarifications

The High Court did not quash the SCN or O‑in‑O but allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate forum.
 The decision confirms consolidated notices are permissible where fraud and interlinked transactions across periods exist.
 Other substantive arguments were left open for the appeal before the appellate authority.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS09092025CW121922025_175429.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.