Satender Kumar Mishra Proprietor Laxmi Enterprises vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi North Commissionerate & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Satender Kumar Mishra, Proprietor of Laxmi Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged an Order-in-Original dated January 29, 2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North. This order imposed a penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act on the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that he had sold goods and paid the requisite GST, and therefore, no penalty should have been imposed. The impugned order dealt with facts concerning 495 dealers and involved the utilization of fake Input Tax Credit through fake firms and goods-less invoices.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner's submissions would necessitate an examination of facts, which is beyond the scope of a writ petition. The Petitioner then expressed his intention to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file the appeal by July 15, 2025. The Court further directed that upon filing, the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, provided it is filed along with the pre-deposit as required by Section 107 of the CGST Act, as it existed on the date of the impugned order. No specific finding was made on the merits of the penalty imposed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is liable for penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, when he claims to have sold goods and paid the requisite GST? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that since he had actually sold the goods and paid the GST, no penalty could be imposed on him. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the impugned order dealt with complex factual matters involving numerous dealers and the large-scale utilization of fake Input Tax Credit through fake firms and goods-less invoices, which required examination beyond the scope of a writ petition. The Court noted that the Petitioner's submissions would require an examination of facts beyond the scope of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 122, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 23.05.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Satender Kumar Mishra, Proprietor Laxmi Enterprises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original dated 29th January, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by Office of Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North. Vide the impugned order, penalty under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) has been imposed against the Petitioner. 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 01/07/2025 at 20:42:57
The submission of Mr. Rajesh Mahna, ld. Counsel for Petitioner is that the Petitioner is one of the sellers who in fact, sold the goods and has also paid the requisite Goods and Service Tax. Therefore, no penalty could be imposed on the Petitioner.
Heard. The impugned order is an order dealing with various facts in respect of 495 dealers and large-scale utilization and availment of fake Input Tax Credit through fake firms and goods-less invoices. The submissions of Mr. Rajesh Mahna, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner would require the Court in writ juri iction to examine facts which is beyond the scope of the writ petition.
At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Mahna, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he wishes to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority assailing the impugned order. Accordingly, the Petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the appeal by 15th July, 2025, upon which the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The said appeal shall be filed along with the pre-deposit in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act, as it exists on the date of impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. MAY 23, 2025/da/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 01/07/2025 at 20:42:57
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.