Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, proprietor of M/s Kunj Behari Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21 January 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi North confirming a demand of ₹55,15,012/- along with penalty.

The dispute originated from an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), which alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. through fake invoices issued by non-existent firms.

The Petitioner’s firm was implicated as one of the beneficiaries of such ITC routed through intermediary entities, including M/s Nivaran Enterprises.

Separately, another order dated 10 January 2025 confirmed:

  • ₹55,15,011/- relating to ITC from M/s Nivaran Enterprises
  • ₹14,12,730/- relating to ITC from M/s Radhey Enterprises

The Petitioner contended that the amount of ₹55,15,012/- had been duplicated in both orders, leading to double demand.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether duplication of GST demand in two separate adjudication orders can be examined in writ jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the Petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 CGST Act.
  3. Whether relief regarding pre-deposit can be granted in case of apparent duplication of demand.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The same amount (₹55,15,012/- approx.) was included in both orders, resulting in double taxation/double demand.
  • Such duplication was a clear error on the part of the department.
  • The impugned orders were therefore liable to be set aside. 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The orders passed are appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • The appropriate remedy lies before the Appellate Authority, not through a writ petition.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court held that both impugned orders are appealable orders under Section 107 CGST Act.
  • The issue of duplication requires factual adjudication, which should be examined by the Appellate Authority.
  • Prima facie, the Court observed a possible duplication of ITC demand relating to M/s Nivaran Enterprises.

Directions Issued:

  1. Petitioner permitted to file appeal within 30 days.
  2. Appeal to be decided on merits.
  3. Relaxation in pre-deposit granted:
    • Pre-deposit required only for ₹14,12,730/- (relating to M/s Radhey Enterprises) at the initial stage.
  4. Court clarified that it has not examined merits, except the duplication issue for limited purposes. 

Important Clarification by Court

  • High Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective statutory remedy is available, especially in tax matters.
  • However, limited intervention is permissible to prevent undue hardship (such as excessive pre-deposit due to duplication).

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS16042025CW47762025_213001.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.