Writ Petition Dismissed – Remedy Lies in GST Appeal Process

Case Reference:

• Case Title: M/s Kavish Ispat Through Proprietor Sunil Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.

• Court: High Court of Delhi

• Petition No.: W.P.(C) 14045/2024 & CM APPL. 58782/2024

• Judgment Date: 06.05.2025

• Relevant Sections: Section 107, Section 168A, Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, CGST Act, 2017

• Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit – denial on supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation & challenge to Notifications 09/2023 and 56/2023

• Related Notifications Challenged: Notification No. 09/2023 (Central Tax) dated 31.03.2023 & Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) dated 28.12.2023

Facts of the Case (Para 2–7)

1. Petitioner challenged (i) SCN dated 27.05.2024, (ii) GST DRC-07 order dated 31.08.2024, and (iii) vires of Notifications 09/2023 & 56/2023, alleging violation of Section 168A (extension of time without proper GST Council recommendation).

2. Notifications’ validity already under judicial scrutiny in multiple High Courts and before Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax).

3. Petitioner claimed reply was filed on 27.06.2024 with documents but was not considered and no personal hearing was given.

4. Revenue contended personal hearing was fixed on 28.06.2024 and reply was considered, but found unsatisfactory as supplier’s registration had been retrospectively cancelled for being non-existent.

Questions in Consideration (Para 4–6, 8–11)

1. Whether the impugned order was passed without considering petitioner’s reply and without granting proper hearing.

2. Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked against an appealable GST order under Section 107.

3. Whether adjudication should await Supreme Court’s decision on validity of Notifications 09/2023 & 56/2023.

Observations of the Court (Para 7–8)

1. SCN showed a personal hearing was fixed; reply was indeed considered in the order.

2. Reply rejected as supplier’s registration was cancelled due to non-existence—therefore ITC was denied.

3. Since the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 CGST Act, writ remedy is not appropriate.

4. Validity of Notifications 09/2023 & 56/2023 already pending before Supreme Court; appellate decision will be subject to its outcome.

Judgment of the Court (Para 9–12)

1. Petition disposed of, directing petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 with pre-deposit by 10.07.2025.

2. If appeal is filed within time, it will not be dismissed on limitation grounds and will be heard on merits.

3. GST Portal access to be provided for filing reply and viewing documents.

4. Issue of notifications’ validity kept open; appellate authority bound by Supreme Court’s eventual decision.

Between Fine Lines (Simple Summary)

• The Delhi HC refused to quash the GST demand; remedy lies in appeal under Section 107.

• Court found personal hearing and reply consideration were given.

• ITC was denied as supplier’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled for being non-existent.

• Validity of time-extension notifications will be decided by the Supreme Court.

• Appeal to be heard on merits if filed by the given deadline.

Summary of Referred Cases

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.”