M/S S.S. Sales Corporation Through Its Partner Mr Sourabh Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Division Pitampura Delhi West & Anr.

The present Petition has been filed seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, inter alia, quashing Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 29.09.2025 issued along with FORM DRC-01, and the subsequent Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 30.03.2026 along with FORM DRC-

Pithily put on 21.10.2024 the Respondent No.2 initiated a GST audit for Financial Years (FY) 2018-19 to 2022-23 by issuing Form ADT-01. Pursuant thereto, an Audit Observation Letter dated 09.12.2024 identifying eighteen discrepancies was issued, followed by Form DRC-01A dated 14.01.2025 seeking payment of tax, interest and penalty. Thereafter, the Final Audit Report (ADT-02) dated 20.02.2025 was issued, and a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) dated 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 30/07/2026 at 15:30:57

2025 under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (to be read as Act of 2017) was issued for the same audit period. The Petitioner submitted its reply on 12.07.2025; however, an OIO dated 24.12.2025 came to be passed. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal against the said Order, which is presently pending consideration.

During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, Respondent No.1 issued a separate Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025 under Sections 50 and 74 of the Act of 2017 for FY 2019- 20, alleging excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of scrutiny of returns under Instruction No.02/2023-GST dated 26.05.2023. 4. In response to the aforesaid SCN, the Petitioner submitted its reply on 28.10.2025. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned OIO, followed by issuance of Form DRC-07. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has preferred the present Petition.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner fairly admits that the Impugned OIO is amenable to the statutory appellate remedy. However, he contends that the very initiation of the second SCN is without juri iction, inasmuch as the material forming the basis thereof was already available with the Department during the earlier audit proceedings..

This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Whether the allegations forming the subject matter of the impugned SCN are founded upon material that was already available with the Department during the earlier proceedings, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom, are issues involving factual as well as legal examination, which can appropriately be adjudicated by the Appellate 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 30/07/2026 at 15:30:57

In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition. Hence, the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned OIO.

Needless to observe that the Petitioner shall be entitled to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the present Petition for the purpose of computing the period of limitation.

Accordingly, the present Petition alongwith pending applications, is disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 28, 2026/sp/hr 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 30/07/2026 at 15:30:57