Case Title: Ashish Singhal Proprietor APN Trading Co. vs. Principal Commissioner of Delhi GST & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 6917/2024
Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC)
Date of Judgement: 23rd April 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017
Facts of the Case
[Para 2, 6, 7]
-
The Petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 04.12.2023 and an adjudication order dated 13.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act for FY 2018-19.
-
A demand of ₹4.34 crores was raised due to ITC availed on purchases from M/s Essar Foods & Commodities, whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively w.e.f. 30.11.2017.
-
The Petitioner contended that this cancellation was already set aside by a coordinate bench in W.P.(C) 4826/2024 vide order dated 16.10.2024.
Question(s) in Consideration
[Para 4, 5, 6]
-
Whether the retrospective ITC denial against the Petitioner is valid when the supplier’s GST cancellation has already been quashed?
-
Whether the impugned adjudication order can survive when based solely on such retrospective cancellation?
-
What is the legal status of Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 in view of the pending challenge before the Supreme Court?
Observation of the Court
[Para 5, 8, 9, 10]
-
The Court acknowledged that the retrospective cancellation of the supplier’s registration—basis of the ITC denial—was already quashed by a coordinate bench.
-
Several other similar petitions involving challenge to Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 are pending before various High Courts and the issue is under consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
-
Therefore, while the Court refrained from ruling on the vires of the notifications, it held that the matter deserved a fresh hearing based on the changed facts.
Judgement of the Court
[Para 10–15]
-
The impugned adjudication order dated 13.04.2024 is set aside.
-
The Petitioner is permitted to file a fresh reply to the SCN within 30 days, and the Adjudicating Authority shall grant a personal hearing.
-
The outcome will be subject to the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the impugned notifications.
-
Portal access must be provided to the Petitioner for compliance and participation.
Between Fine Lines (Simple Summary in 5 Lines)
The Delhi High Court quashed a ₹4.34 crore ITC demand raised against APN Trading Co.
The demand was based on a retrospectively cancelled GSTIN of the supplier, which had already been restored.
The Court ruled the adjudication must be redone, allowing the Petitioner to present its case afresh.
The validity of GST Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 remains undecided and sub judice.
The order ensures natural justice and links the outcome to a pending Supreme Court ruling.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 | Lead case challenging Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 under Section 168A | Pending before Delhi HC |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. AC, State Tax & Ors. | SLP No. 4240/2025 (SC) | Supreme Court is examining the validity of time extensions under Notification 9 & 56/2023 | Pending, interim relief granted |
| W.P.(C) No. 4826/2024 (Essar Foods cancellation case) | Delhi HC | Retrospective cancellation of supplier GSTIN was quashed | Supplier’s registration restored |
| Multiple High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Telangana) | Various | Conflicting judgments on validity of Notification 56/2023 | No uniformity; SC will decide final outcome |
| Punjab & Haryana High Court Batch of Petitions | Order dated 12.03.2025 | Deferred judgment on notifications till SC ruling in SLP 4240/2025 | Interim relief continued |
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
