BharatTaxGST

Mr Sharad Narula Proprietor Of M/S As Enterprises & Ors. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/9514/2026HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01030517202620 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Bhakhru, Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Vikas Maini, Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Mr. Sanchit Sehgal, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Sharma, GP for UOI Ms. Namrah Nasir, Jr. Standing Counsel for CBIC

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9514/2026, CM APPL. 44218/2026, CM APPL. 44219/2026, CM APPL. 44220/2026 MR SHARAD NARULA PROPRIETOR OF M/S AS ENTERPRISES & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anirudh Bhakhru, Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Vikas Maini, Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Mr. Sanchit Sehgal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, GP for UOI Ms. Namrah Nasir, Jr. Standing Counsel for CBIC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R %

20.07.

2026

1.

Admittedly, the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the Order-in- Original dated 24.12.2025, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.

2.

The allegations against the Petitioner pertain to the availment of Input Tax Credit on the basis of fake and bogus invoices. The impugned common order has been passed against as many as 44 entities. The impugned common order records that the Petitioner was duly served with a show cause notice and was also afforded an 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 25/07/2026 at 12:05:43

opportunity of personal hearing, which the Petitioner failed to avail.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while placing reliance upon Jupiter Exports v. Commissioner of GST, (2023) 5 High Court Cases (Del) 293 : (2023) 116 GSTR 426 : 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4343, submits that where an effective opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the Petitioner, the existence of an alternative statutory remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ juri iction.

4.

This Court has considered the aforesaid submission. The present writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, which would require adjudication. Hence, the Petitioner may avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.

5.

Needless to observe, if the Petitioner files an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking exclusion of the period during which the present writ petition remained pending before this Court, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

6.

In view of the above, the present writ petition, along with all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 20, 2026 Pallavi/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 25/07/2026 at 12:05:43

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.