Facts of the Case

Petitioner Samyak Jain challenged the impugned order dated 31 January 2025 passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication), Central GST, Delhi, demanding over Rs. 48 crore from him under the GST regime.

The Petitioner stated that he previously operated under VAT as M/s Samyak International but had closed business on 28 July 2017. A new GST registration was obtained in his other firm’s name — M/s Samyak Fashion (India).

He claimed that the provisional GSTIN linked to M/s Samyak International was not applied for by him and was misused by unknown parties, resulting in significant Input Tax Credit (ITC) issues and erroneous demand. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned GST demand notice against the Petitioner was sustainable considering his claim of non‑conduct of impugned transactions.
  2. Whether the Petitioner must be directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
  3. Determination of the investigative jurisdiction, particularly the role of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police, where the Petitioner asserted his GST number was used by third parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The Petitioner asserted that he never conducted the transactions which triggered the demand.
  • He stated that the GSTIN was misused without his knowledge, implying identity or credential impersonation.
  • He argued that mere forwarding of complaint by EOW to GST authorities was inadequate; proper criminal investigation should be undertaken by EOW before confirming the demand.

Respondents’ Arguments

  • Respondents contended that proper procedure under the CGST Act was followed in issuing the GST demand.
  • The case record indicated that EOW examined the complaint and found the matter primarily within the GST Department’s jurisdiction, forwarding it accordingly.
  • The Department defended that factual or jurisdictional challenges should be addressed through statutory remedies rather than by bypassing appellate channels. 

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.) held:

1. Appeal Through Statutory Remedy

  • The Petitioner was directed to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 against the impugned demand.
  • Even if limitation expired, the court granted one month’s time for filing such appeal along with requisite pre‑deposit.
  • If filed within the extended time, the appeal must be heard on merits and not rejected on limitation grounds.

2. Investigation by Economic Offences Wing

  • The Court observed that EOW’s status report merely showed forwarding the complaint to the GST Department, with no independent investigation carried out.
  • The Court clarified that where a petitioner alleges impersonation or misuse of credentials, EOW must investigate it.
  • Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to EOW for due investigation in accordance with law. All documents with the GST Department relating to the Petitioner were to be forwarded to EOW to aid inquiry.

3. Further Directions

  • EOW was directed to file an updated status report before the High Court.
  • The next hearing was listed for 12 November 2025. 

Important Clarifications

Where statutory appeal remedies (Section 107) exist, High Court does not decide merits of fiscal demand but ensures appeal rights are preserved.
 Mere complaint forwarding by Police does not amount to meaningful investigation if impersonation is alleged.
 EOW must take independent steps in cases of alleged credential misuse/identity fraud leading to tax liabilities.

Statutes / Sections Involved

  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Appeal to Appellate Authority.
  • Section 132, CGST Act, 2017 — Offences and penalties under GST regime.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS25082025CW91392025_185314.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.