Hg Graphics Private LTD vs. Principal Commissioner CGST, C.R Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, HG Graphics Private Ltd, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated February 2, 2025, and January 29, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East and Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North, respectively. These orders raised demands for the period July 2017 to March 2023. The demand in the February 2, 2025 order was Rs. 2,55,58,760/-, and the demand in the January 29, 2025 order was Rs. 2,61,32,576/-. The Petitioner contended that both demands arose from the same transactions, leading to a double demand. In one of the matters, the allegation involved fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit by a third party, and the Petitioner had already deposited Rs. 30,00,000/-.
Held
The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's grievance that two demands were raised for the same period and that there might be an overlap between them. Considering the nature of the matter, the Court directed the Petitioner to approach the Commissioner Appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act for both orders. Crucially, the Court stipulated that pre-deposit would only be required for one of the demands, specifically the one raised by the order dated February 2, 2025. Credit for the Rs. 30,00,000/- already deposited by the Petitioner was to be given towards this pre-deposit. The Petitioner was granted 30 days to file the appeal, with the condition that if filed within this period, the appeals would be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on grounds of limitation. Any further orders regarding pre-deposit or other aspects were left to the discretion of the Appellate Authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is liable for two separate demands for the same period and transactions, as per Section 73 and Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that since the transactions under consideration for both impugned orders were the same, raising two separate demands for the same period constituted a double demand, which is impermissible. They relied on the principle that a single transaction cannot be subject to multiple demands for the same tax liability. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue regarding the Petitioner's contention of double demand. However, the existence of two separate orders from different authorities implies a contention that the demands were validly raised.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 30.04.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
These two writ petitions are filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned orders dated 02nd 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 19:10:57 February, 2025 and 29th January, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East and Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North, respectively.
The main ground on which the challenge has been raised in writ juri iction is that both the orders relate to the period July, 2017 to March, 2023. It is stated that the demands have been raised taking into consideration the same transactions. In respect of order dated 02nd February, 2025 issued by CGST, the demand is of Rs. 2,55,58,760/-. In respect of order dated 29th January, 2025 the demand by DGST is of Rs. 2,61,32,576/-.
Ms. Priyanka Goyal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the transactions being the same, double demand could not have been raised against the Petitioner.
In one of the matters, i.e. W.P.(C) 5661/2025, the allegation is of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit by a third party in which the Petitioner has also received a demand. The Petitioner is also stated to have deposited a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-.
Considering the nature of the matter, since there are two demands in respect of the same period and there could be some overlap, it is directed that the Petitioner may approach the Commissioner Appeals under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in respect of both orders.
However, at this stage the pre-deposit shall be made in respect of only one of the demands, i.e., the demand raised under order dated 02nd February, 2025. Further, while making the pre-deposit credit for the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- which is already stated to have been deposited shall also be given.
This shall be, however, subject to any further orders the Appellate Authority may pass. 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 19:10:57 9. The Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within a period of 30 days from today along with the pre-deposit of 10% after deduction of the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. If the same is filed within 30 days, both the appeals shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on grounds for limitation.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 30, 2025/MR/msh 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 19:10:57
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.