Indu Gupta vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax GST Delhi East
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Rohit Negi, Anuj Gupta, and Indu Gupta, directors of M/s Fine Retailers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Elan Retails Pvt. Ltd., challenged Orders-in-Original (OIOs) passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax GST, Delhi East. These OIOs imposed penalties totaling Rs. 75,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,00,000. The issues stemmed from a search on April 17-18, 2017, leading to Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued in 2017 and 2018. Previously, a coordinate bench of the High Court had set aside earlier orders due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The current OIOs were passed on June 22, 2023, after the remand. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging these new orders on September 23, 2023, but these were returned under objections and re-filed on July 7, 2025, causing a significant delay.
Held
The Court condoned the delay in the refiling of the writ petitions, subject to the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- as costs in each petition with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The Court reasoned that while clients should be diligent, the delay was primarily in refiling, and writ petitions do not have specific limitation periods. The Court held that the issue of whether manufacturing was taking place is a factual matter not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction, and the appropriate remedy was to file appeals under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the petitions were disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to file appeals before the concerned Appellate Authority on or before November 30, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit. The appeals, if filed with the cost deposit, would be heard on merits and not dismissed on grounds of limitation. All other rights and remedies of the parties were left open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petitions, filed after a delay of approximately two years from the date of return under objections, are maintainable in writ jurisdiction, considering the existence of an appellate remedy under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the delay in refiling was due to their counsel's office shifting, leading to the matter skipping their attention. They sought condonation of this delay. Respondent's contention: The Revenue strongly objected to the delay, arguing that the petitioners were aware of the demands and should have pursued their challenge diligently. They contended that the petitioners do not deserve to be relegated to the appellate remedy due to their lack of diligence. 2. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can entertain a factual dispute regarding whether manufacturing was actually taking place, which is the basis of the SCNs? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that both companies were not engaged in manufacturing, rendering the SCNs untenable. Respondent's contention: The Revenue argued that the question of actual manufacturing is a factual issue that cannot be ascertained in writ jurisdiction, and the correct remedy was to file an appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 35B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33 Malhotra, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST DELHI EAST
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Akash Verma, SSC, CBIC. 81
WITH + ROHIT NEGI
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tarun Chawla, Mr. Pravesh Bhaguna, Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Mr. Jatin Singh, Mr. Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Bharat Khurana and Mr. Sarthak Malhotra, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST DELHI EAST
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Pranay Mohan Govil, SSC. 82
AND + INDU GUPTA
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tarun Chawla, Mr. Pravesh Bhaguna, Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Mr. Jatin Singh, Mr. Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Bharat Khurana and Mr. Sarthak Malhotra, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST DELHI EAST
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha, SSC with Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN 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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33 O R D E R %
2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 63140/2025 in W.P.(C) 15418/2025
Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 15418/2025 W.P.(C) 12681/2023 W.P.(C) 15362/2025
The present five petitions have been filed by the Petitioners challenging the following Orders-in-Original: Sl no Diary No Filling date WP( No) Name OIO Penalty (In Rs) Matter listed at Sl No 1 1773770/2023 23.09.2023 15367/2025 INDU GUPTA OIO No 02 dated 22.06.23 ( Fine Line) 7500000 82 2 1773774/2023 23.09.2023 15364/2025 ROHIT NEGI OIO No 02 dated 22.06.23 ( Fine Line) 15000000 81 1773768/2023 23.08.2023 12681/2023 GUPTA OIO No 02 dated 22.06.23 ( Fine Line) 15000000 79 1773764/2023 23.09.2023 15362/2025 GUPTA OIO No 01 dated 22.06.23 ( Elan) 2900000 80 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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33 1773772/2023 23.09.2023 15418/2025 ROHIT NEGI OIO No 01 dated 22.06.23 ( Elan) 2900000 68
The background of these cases is that Central Excise Tax demands were raised against M/s Fine Retailers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Elan Retails Pvt. Ltd. in respect of alleged goods which were being manufactured by them. A search was conducted on 17th April, 2017 and 18th April, 2017. Mr. Rohit Negi and Mr. Anuj Negi are Directors of M/s. Elan Retails Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Indu Gupta along with Mr. Rohit Negi and Mr. Anuj Negi are Directors of M/s Fine Retailers Pvt. Ltd.
Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, ‘SCNs’) were issued on 9th October, 2017, 6th December, 2018 and 27th December, 2018 to the Petitioners. However, it appears that the Petitioners had not filed replies to the SCNs and neither had they appeared in the personal hearings. Thereafter, order dated 2nd May, 2023 was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in petitions which were filed by the Petitioners before this Court being W.P. (C) Nos. 3820/2023, 3838/2023, 3841/2023, 4330/2023 and 4353/2023. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had considered the matter and on the ground that service may not have been properly effected upon the Petitioners of the SCNs, the orders impugned therein were set aside and the matters were restored back before the Adjudicating Authority. The relevant portion of the said order dated 2nd May 2023, is set out below:
“10. It is an admitted case that the notices in the present case could not be served on the petitioners since no one was found in the premises. Mr. Anuj Gupta, admittedly, had informed the authorities that the company has been taken over by a new management and the data can be 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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33 procured from www.mca.gov.in.
No attempts were made by the respondents to find out the registered address of the company. The said email was admittedly received by the respondents on 25.08.2022. The department, however, hurriedly proceeded to pass the impugned orders on 14.09.2022, even though, the Show Cause Notice was issued way back in the year 2017 and 2018. 12. This Court is conscious of the fact that the impugned orders are appealable orders. The impugned orders can be challenged by filing an appeal in terms of Section 35B of the Act. However, since the impugned orders have been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice and that the petitioners have approached this Court immediately on becoming aware of the impugned order, this Court considers it apposite that one opportunity is granted to the petitioners to present their case by filing an appropriate reply before the Adjudicating Authority.
In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is restored before the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners are directed to file their replies alongwith supporting documents within a period of four weeks from today.
The matter is now placed before the Adjudicating Authority on 12.05.2023 at 2:00 p.m. The petitioners are directed not to take unwarranted adjournments and shall cooperate with the adjudication process. The Adjudicating Authority shall endeavour to pass a final order not later than four weeks from the filing of the reply by the petitioners. In case the date fixed is not convenient to the Adjudicating Authority, a fresh date for personal hearing shall be communicated to the petitioners at least one week in advance.
The Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
Upon remand, the present two impugned orders have come to be passed on 22nd June, 2023 in respect of both the companies. The Petitioners have 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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33 sought to challenge these impugned orders by filing writ petitions on 23rd September, 2023. However, these writ petitions were returned under objections and for some reason, the Counsels did not file the same in a timely manner and have chosen to re-file them almost two years later, i.e., on 7th July, 2025. 7. Mr. Sunil Dalal, ld. Senior Counsel seeks to argue on facts that both the companies were, in fact, not engaged in manufacturing, therefore, the SCNs itself are not tenable.
A perusal of the impugned orders and the SCNs would show that during the search, the premises of the Petitioners was inspected and various final products and raw materials were seized. Moreover, the question as to whether there was actual manufacturing taking place or not would be a factual issue which cannot be ascertained in a writ juri iction. The correct remedy for the Petitioners was to file the appeals in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Department have taken vehement objection to the refiling delay of almost two years in these matters and submit that the Petitioners do not deserve to be relegated even to the Appellate remedy as they are conscious and aware of the demands that have been raised and ought to have challenged the same diligently.
In response thereto, Mr. Sunil Dalal, ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioners’ Counsels who had filed the matter initially had a shifting of office and in that process, the matter skipped the attention of the Counsels.
Heard the ld. Counsel for the Parties.
Even if the submission of the Petitioners is accepted to the effect that the Counsel was in some difficulty and it had skipped its attention, there can 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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33 be no justification for the client not to have been diligent in following the matters with their Counsels. However, the delay is primarily in the refiling of the petitions and these are writs where though there is an expectation that the same ought to be filed within a reasonable time, no specific limitation is provided in law. It is deemed appropriate to condone the delay in the refiling subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each of the petitions. The same shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee. The bank details of the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee are as under: ●Name: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee ●Bank: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court. ●A/c No.: 15530110008386 ●IFSC Code: UCBA0001553
The present petitions are disposed of with liberty being given to the Petitioners to file appeals before the concerned Appellate Authority challenging the impugned orders on or before 30th November, 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit.
Proof of deposit of costs shall also be filed with the appeals. If the deposits are done as directed above, the appeals shall be heard on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. OCTOBER 9, 2025/kp/ck 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 14/10/2025 at 13:09:33
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.