J.K. Enterprises v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1
Facts :
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 7 August 2024 and order dated 30 January 2025 confirming tax demand for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC. The Department’s case involved investigation against multiple entities allegedly availing fake ITC through non-existent firms, with the petitioner being one of the recipients. The petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN nor attend personal hearing despite notices being sent via registered email. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court raising issues of jurisdiction, service, and validity of consolidated SCN.
Court Decision:
The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. It held that personal hearing notices were duly served through registered email and the petitioner failed to participate in proceedings. The Court upheld that consolidated SCN for multiple financial years is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, and that adjudication by a single authority in multi-notice cases is valid. It further held that issues raised required factual adjudication and the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 107. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000, with liberty granted to file appeal by 15 January 2026 with pre-deposit.
Cases Referred:
- Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI
- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited
- Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India
- Sheetal and Sons v. Union of India
- MHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South
Other Case Law
JR Metal Chennai Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Two Others
An order under Section 85 fastening successor liability on the buyer of plant, machinery, land and building, on a finding that this amounted to a transfer of the seller’s business. At issue: whether that finding was open to writ scrutiny as made without
Background. The petitioner had purchased plant and machinery, land an...
Read MoreCommissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha vs. Godavaridevi Saraf
Whether an Income Tax Tribunal sitting outside the State of Madras is bound to follow a Madras High Court decision declaring Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unconstitutional, and whether the penalty imposed under that section can be sustain
BACKGROUNDThe assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1968-69 ...
Read MorePatanjali Foods Limited v. Assistant Commissioner CGST, Narela Division & Ors.
A composite demand spanning periods both before and after approval of a resolution plan that took over an insolvent company on a clean-slate basis. At issue: the operative cut-off date separating dues extinguished by the plan from dues still open to recov
Background. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. underwent insolvency proceedin...
Read More