Shomuk Engineering And Consultancy Services Through Its Prop. Aniruddha Banerjee vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi East

Held

The Court held that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Impugned Order, particularly concerning the Petitioner's claim of Input Tax Credit and the magnitude of the demand, could be examined by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the High Court did not consider it fit to pass any orders on this prayer in the writ petition. With respect to the Petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide their Rectification Application, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the 'Proper Officer' to decide the application for rectification, if already filed, within a period of two months from the date of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but effectively deferred the jurisdictional challenge to the appellate forum.

Facts

The Petitioner, Shomuk Engineering and Consultancy Services, filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2024 and an Impugned Order dated 27.02.2025, both passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi East. The Petitioner also sought a direction for the Respondent to decide their application for rectification of the Impugned Order, filed on 24.09.2026. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not respond to the Show Cause Notice despite efforts by the authorities to serve them. The Petitioner's counsel argued that the Impugned Order was without jurisdiction, citing a significant disparity between the Input Tax Credit availed (Rs. 11,12,430/-) and the demand raised (over Rs. 12,00,00,000/-).

Key Issues

1. Whether the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi East, is without jurisdiction, considering the Petitioner's claim of availing Input Tax Credit of Rs. 11,12,430/- against a demand of over Rs. 12,00,00,000/-, and whether this aspect can be examined by the High Court in a writ petition? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order was without jurisdiction due to the substantial discrepancy between the Input Tax Credit availed and the demand raised. They contended that these aspects warranted examination. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent did not present any arguments as 'None' appeared for them. However, the Court noted that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.