BharatTaxGST

Ferrous Tradex vs. The Superintendent, Range-41 CGST, North Delhi Division-Bawana

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/10597/2026HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01034015202620 August 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Yadav, Mr. Ananay Lamba, Mr. Arman Khan and Mr. Puneet Bhardawaj, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Pranay Mohan Govil, SSC with Ms. Priya Katare, Adv

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010340152026 + W.P.(C) 10597/2026, CM APPL. 49127/2026 FERROUS TRADEX .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lokesh Yadav, Mr. Ananay Lamba , Mr. Arman Khan and Mr. Puneet Bhardawaj, Advs. versus THE SUPERINTENDENT, RANGE-41 CGST, NORTH DELHI DIVISION-BAWANA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pranay Mohan Govil, SSC with Ms. Priya Katare, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R %

20.08.

2026

1.

In the present case, the Petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled after the premises of the Petitioner were found to be locked. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application seeking revocation of the cancellation. A fresh Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner; however, the Petitioner neither filed a reply nor furnished the requisite documents. Consequently, the application for revocation of cancellation was dismissed on 06.01.2026. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the said order was also dismissed on 30.04.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not possess the NOC from the Anti-Evasion Branch. He further submits that the Anti-Evasion Branch subsequently inspected the premises of the Petitioner, which were found to be locked. It is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2026 at 10:45:05

submitted that, inadvertently, the said material could not be placed before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner’s firm obtained GST registration in April, 2025, whereas, in August, 2025, the premises were found to be non-existent. It is, therefore, submitted that the credentials of the Petitioner’s firm are doubtful.

4.

The Petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the GSTAT against the order dated 30.04.2026. In view of the availability of such efficacious statutory remedy, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its writ juri iction in the present proceedings.

5.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative statutory remedy. However, in case the Petitioner prefers an appeal before the GSTAT within a period of 15 days from today, the GSTAT is requested to make an endeavour to decide the same, preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 20, 2026/kp/rm This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2026 at 10:45:05

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.