Case Title, Court, Petition Number, Category & Statutory Framework

Case Title: Bajrang Iron Store through its Proprietor Bajrang Kumar Aggarwal v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, Delhi West & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition: W.P.(C) 4541/2025 & CM Appl. 21019/2025
Date of Judgment: 09 April 2025
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit – Allegation of fraudulent ITC & challenge to SCNs and orders-in-original
Relevant Provisions:

• Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – Statutory appellate remedy

• Sections 73/74 (implicit basis for ITC-related demands)

• Procedural aspects concerning SCNs and principles of natural justice

Facts of the Case (with Para References)

The petitioner, Bajrang Iron Store, a registered dealer under GST (GSTIN 07AJMPA4878K1ZR), discontinued its iron-trading business and applied for cancellation of GST registration on 11 April 2019 (para 4). Subsequently, multiple show-cause notices dated 24 July 2024, 25 July 2024, and 3 August 2024 were issued in relation to transactions allegedly linked to M/s Himgiri Sales, asserting that the petitioner availed fraudulent and ineligible ITC on the ground that the supplier itself was found to be non-existent (para 5). Based on these SCNs, the Department passed three Orders-in-Original dated 3 December 2024, 24 January 2025, and 1 February 2025 raising tax demands and penalties (para 4).

The petitioner contended that although replies were filed, no personal hearing notice was ever served (para 6). Conversely, the Department argued that the reply itself was cryptic and the orders are appealable under the statute (para 7).

Questions / Core Legal Issues (with Para References)

1. Whether the petitioner could bypass the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and directly invoke Article 226 to challenge the Orders-in-Original (paras 7–10).

2. Whether the absence of a personal hearing would justify writ intervention despite availability of an alternative remedy (paras 6–7).

3. Whether delay in filing the statutory appeal for the earliest order dated 3 December 2024 can be condoned by the High Court (para 10).

Court’s Observations (with Para References)

The Bench noted that all three Orders-in-Original are appealable orders under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act (para 8). The prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal—three months—had already expired for the first order dated 3 December 2024 (para 9).

While the petitioner insisted that the lack of personal hearing vitiated the orders (para 6), the Department argued that even the petitioner’s written reply lacked substantive defence (para 7). The Court observed that since the issues relate to ITC adjudication on merits, evaluation must be undertaken by the Appellate Authority, not under writ jurisdiction (para 8).

Judgment / Final Directions (with Para References)

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner must necessarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy (para 12). However, acknowledging that all three orders arise out of connected transactions, the Court granted 30 additional days from the date of order to file appeals. If filed within this period, the appeal against the first order dated 3 December 2024 shall not be rejected on limitation grounds (para 10). All three appeals shall be adjudicated on merits by the relevant authority (para 11).

Between the Fine Lines (Practical Takeaways for Trade & Industry)

The judgment reinforces that writ courts will not entertain challenges to GST assessment orders or ITC-related SCNs unless exceptional circumstances exist. Even allegations of lack of personal hearing do not automatically permit bypassing Section 107. Businesses must vigilantly monitor GST communications and comply with appellate timelines. Courts may offer limited relief only where multiple connected orders risk creating inequity, but adjudication on merits remains the exclusive domain of the appellate machinery.

Cases Referred — Summary Table

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.”