BharatTaxGST

Rishi Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/5121/2025HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01022640202512 August 2026Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Garg and Mr. Yash Gaiha, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr.AdityaSingla, SSC, CBIC withMr.Arya, Ms. Shreya, Mr. DhananjayGautam, Mr.Akhil, Ms. Sakshi Chandna, Advs

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010226402025 + W.P.(C) 5121/2025 and CM APPL. 23392/2025 RISHI ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJEEV KUMAR GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg and Mr. Yash Gaiha, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION CGST DELHI NORTH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.AdityaSingla, SSC, CBIC withMr.Arya, Ms. Shreya, Mr. DhananjayGautam, Mr.Akhil, Ms. Sakshi Chandna, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R % 12.08.2026

1.

Availability of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Petitioner is not in dispute. However, learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that the Show Cause Notice dated 08.08.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’), as well as the Order dated 18.02.2025, passed pursuant thereto, is beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. He further contends that the SCN pertains to the period from 2018 to 2024, whereas the aforesaid Order pertains to the period from 2017 to 2021. 3. Learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that another similar petition filed by the Petitioner, bearing W.P.(C) 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 14/08/2026 at 13:25:33

No.4374/2025, raising similar grounds, has already been dismissed by this Court on 20.08.2025. 4. This Court has considered the submissions. Once a statutory alternative remedy of Appeal is maintainable, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage.It shall, however, be open to the Petitioner to raise all its objections before the Appellate Authority.

5.

Needless to observe, if the Petitioner files an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the period spent before this Court, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law and on its own merits.

6.

The present Writ Petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. AUGUST 12, 2026/PT/shah 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 14/08/2026 at 13:25:33

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.