Jamia Hamdard Deemed TO Be University vs. The Commissioner SGST Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the dispute concerning the validity and authorization of the GST registration granted to respondent no. 3, including any allegations of fraud, cannot be decided by the Writ Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that such matters require an inquiry into facts and evidence, which is best undertaken through the statutory remedies available under the CGST/DGST Act, 2017. The ratio decidendi is that complex factual disputes related to GST registration, especially those involving potential fraud, must be resolved through the prescribed statutory mechanisms rather than writ proceedings. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available under the provisions of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017. The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration granted to respondent no. 3, Hamdard Education Society. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation seeking the cancellation of respondent no. 3's registration, but no action was taken. The petitioner contended that the registration was granted improperly or fraudulently. The dispute concerns the validity and authorization of the GST registration granted to respondent no. 3.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can decide the dispute regarding the validity and authorization of the GST registration granted to respondent no. 3, including allegations of fraud. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the registration granted to respondent no. 3 was improper and sought its cancellation. They relied on their representation filed for this purpose and the lack of action by the authorities. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue authorities are the appropriate forum to decide such matters. The Court implicitly suggests that the petitioner's grievance falls within the purview of the GST Act.