Krishan Pal Singh vs. The Additional Commissioner Delhi West Commissionerate & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original and a Show Cause Notice under GST, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner also questioned the retrospective application of amended pre-deposit provisions.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. It also ruled that the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal would be governed by the law as it stood at the time of the Show Cause Notice, not the amended provisions.
Key Issues
Whether the Order-in-Original was non-speaking and whether amended pre-deposit provisions could be applied retrospectively to proceedings initiated before their amendment.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6), Section 112(8)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 21.09.2026
Through this Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of Certiorari, thereby quashing and setting aside the Order-in- Original No. 100/CGST WEST/GST/SG/ADC/2024-25 dated 31.01.2025 issued vide C. No. DGGI/Adc/West/S.Garg/100/2025 passed by Respondent no. 1, being arbitrary, illegal and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. B. Issue and appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of certiorari, thereby quashing and declaring the Show Cause Notice No. 75/2024-25 dated 26.07.2024 pages vide F. No.DGGI/INT/INTL/577/2023/3914-3996 issued by Respondent no. 2 as being without juri iction, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and consequently quashing the same. C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the amended pre-deposit provisions under Section 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 introduced vide Notification no. 16/2025- Central Tax dated 17.09.2025 with effect from 1.10.2025 cannot be retrospectively applied to proceedings arising from Show Cause Notices issued prior thereto; 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 23/09/2026 at 11:11:56
D. In the alternative, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction waiving the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of filing of the appeal against the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
Admittedly, the Petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The allegations against the Petitioner are, inter alia, that he created and controlled 13 firms through which Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.30,50,13,190/- was allegedly passed on. The Adjudicating Authority has passed a common order against as many as 81 noticees.
Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is non-speaking and fails to deal with the issues raised by the Petitioner and, therefore, suffers from a juri ictional error. He further submits that, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., 2026:DHC:6124-DB, since the proceedings against the Petitioner were initiated prior to 01.10.2025, the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act would not govern the appeal arising therefrom.
This Court has considered the submissions. The Impugned Order-in-Original runs into more than 300 pages. The Adjudicating Authority has, inter alia, recorded findings regarding the role attributed to the Petitioner in the alleged wrongful availment and passing on of Input Tax Credit.
Whether the findings recorded in the Impugned Order adequately deal with the contentions raised by the Petitioner would require examination of the facts and the merits of the adjudication. 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 23/09/2026 at 11:11:56
This Court is not inclined to undertake such an exercise in its writ juri iction, particularly when the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’).
The issue concerning pre-deposit, however, is covered by the judgment in Gaurav Jain (supra). In the present case, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 26.07.2024, i.e., prior to 01.10.2025. Further, the Impugned Order, insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, imposes penalty only without raising any demand of tax against him.
Consequently, the appellate remedy available to the Petitioner would be governed by Section 107(6) of the CGST Act as it stood on the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice.
Accordingly, in the event the Petitioner files an appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, without insisting upon deposit of ten per cent of the disputed penalty in terms of the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.
With these observations, the present Writ Petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. BHARAT PARASHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/sp/ad 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 23/09/2026 at 11:11:56
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.