Delhi High Court Grants Relief to GST Assessee, Allows Appeal Against Orders
Delhi High Court Grants Relief to GST Assessee, Allows Appeal Against Orders
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to hundreds of GST noticees by allowing them to challenge orders related to alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) totaling Rs. 173 crores. The court emphasized that procedural delays or technical issues in service should not bar substantive rights.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Suresh Kumar, received two orders dated 16th January 2025 and 1st February 2025, related to alleged fraudulent ITC claims. The petitioner challenged the orders, highlighting issues with service and limitation.
Procedural Background
The Delhi High Court considered the petitioner’s challenge and referred to its precedent in Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North. The court clarified that SCNs for fraudulent ITC can validly cover “periods” across multiple financial years.
Issues
1. Whether the delay in refiling should be condoned?
2. Whether the impugned orders can be challenged through appeal?
3. Whether the service of the impugned order was valid?
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contention: The petitioner argued that the first order pertained to multiple years and that the delay in refiling should be condoned. The petitioner also raised limitation concerns regarding the second order.
Revenue’s Contention: The revenue argued that the impugned order had been duly communicated via email, which constituted valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that fraudulent availment often spans transactions across different financial years, making consolidated notices legally tenable. The court emphasized that delays in uploading Form DRC-07 do not render the order barred by limitation if the order was duly communicated via email.
Implications
This judgment provides relief to GST noticees by allowing them to challenge orders despite procedural delays or technical issues. The judgment clarifies the law on service and limitation, providing certainty for taxpayers.
Outcome
The court allowed the petitioner to challenge the orders through appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, directing that such appeals must be filed by 30th September 2025, with requisite pre-deposit. The court clarified that the appeals shall be adjudicated on merits without being dismissed on the ground of limitation.
In this case, the petitioner was represented by Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal and Mr. Shubham Goel, Advocates. Meanwhile, the respondent was represented by Mr. Aakarsh Srivasatava, Advocate.
