Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Dev Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging:

  • Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2024 for FY 2019–20
  • Order dated 28.08.2024 confirming tax, interest, and penalty of ₹43,82,768
  • Validity of Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 (Central & State Tax)

The Petitioner contended that Input Tax Credit (ITC) was validly claimed as suppliers had filed GSTR-1, and denial of credit was unjustified. It was also alleged that no opportunity for personal hearing was granted before passing the impugned order. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned order passed without granting personal hearing is liable to be set aside under writ jurisdiction?
  2. Whether challenge to GST Notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act can be entertained when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court?
  3. Whether writ jurisdiction is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal exists? 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The impugned order was passed without granting a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
  • ITC was rightly claimed as suppliers had duly filed returns.
  • The extension notifications under Section 168A were invalid due to lack of proper GST Council recommendation.
  • The adjudication order was passed ex parte and without proper consideration of reply.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The reply submitted by the Petitioner was incomplete and unsupported by documents.
  • The adjudicating authority rightly confirmed the demand based on available records.
  • The Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 CGST Act.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court observed that the adjudicating authority found the Petitioner’s reply incomplete and lacking supporting documents.
  • No interference was warranted under Article 226 in such circumstances.
  • The Court held that the proper remedy is to file an appeal under Section 107 CGST Act.
  • The Petitioner was granted time till 10 July 2025 to file an appeal.
  • If filed within the extended time along with pre-deposit, the appeal shall be decided on merits and not dismissed on limitation.
  • The Court clarified that:
    • Observations in this order shall not affect appellate proceedings
    • Validity of impugned notifications remains open
    • Outcome is subject to Supreme Court decision in SLP No. 4240/2025 

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • Writ jurisdiction will not be exercised when:
    • Factual disputes exist
    • Alternative statutory remedy is available
  • Extension notifications under Section 168A CGST Act are already under consideration before the Supreme Court
  • High Courts are refraining from adjudicating validity due to judicial discipline
  • Appellate authority must decide the matter independently on merits 

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68907052025CW169732024_192514.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.