Shivam Iron Store Through Proprietor Jagdish Rai Bansal vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Shivam Iron Store, through its proprietor Jagdish Rai Bansal, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 3rd February 2025, which imposed a demand of Rs. 25,75,04,496/-. This order was previously challenged by the Petitioner in another writ petition, W.P.(C) 4528/2025. In that prior petition, the Court had permitted the Petitioner to avail its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, noting that the Petitioner had been supplied with relied upon documents (RUDs) and given an opportunity for a personal hearing, but chose not to appear. The earlier writ petition was disposed of on 8th April 2025. The current petition also challenges Notification no. 6/2020-Central Tax dated 3rd February 2020. The Court noted that a second challenge to the same Order-in-Original was not permissible.
Held
The Court held that a second challenge to the same Order-in-Original dated 3rd February 2025 was impermissible, especially in light of the previous order dated 8th April 2025 in W.P.(C) 4528/2025. In that prior order, the Petitioner had been directed to pursue its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, after the Court found that principles of natural justice were not violated and there was no jurisdictional error. The Court also noted that the Petitioner had already filed an appeal in terms of the earlier order. Consequently, the present writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not explicitly address the challenge to Notification no. 6/2020-Central Tax on its merits, but the dismissal of the petition effectively means this challenge was not entertained in this proceeding. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot re-litigate an issue already decided or directed to be pursued through a specific statutory remedy by a High Court in a writ proceeding, particularly when a fresh writ petition is filed challenging the same order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to challenge the Order-in-Original dated 3rd February 2025 in a fresh writ petition, given that it was already the subject of a previous writ petition (W.P.(C) 4528/2025) which was disposed of on 8th April 2025, directing the Petitioner to avail its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to challenge Notification no. 6/2020-Central Tax dated 3rd February 2020 in the present writ petition. Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner sought to challenge the Order-in-Original and Notification no. 6/2020-Central Tax. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Petitioner regarding the merits of the challenge to the Order-in-Original or the Notification in this specific hearing, beyond stating that these were challenged. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, Union of India & Anr., did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but the Court's decision implies reliance on the previous order and the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 09.12.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 3rd February, 2025 whereby a demand of Rs.25,75,04,496/- has been raised against the Petitioner.
It appears that notice was inadvertently issued in this matter on 30th October, 2025. The said Order-in-Original which is challenged in the present petition i.e., dated 3rd February, 2025 was previously challenged in W.P.(C) 4528/2025 wherein a detailed order was passed and the Petitioner was permitted to avail of its appellate remedy. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8th April, 2025 in the following terms: “22.In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner having been supplied with all the RUDs and having had an opportunity to file a reply, chose not to appear in the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, when the final hearing took place. Therefore, these actions of the Petitioner cannot
result in raising a grievance today in respect of the RUDs. The prayer in this writ petition are as under: 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 12/12/2025 at 13:45:54
“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order thereby quashing the show cause notice dated 24.07.2024 and consequently order dated 03.02.2025; in or alternative issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order thereby directing the respondents to supply relied upon documents and· give a personal hearing in adjudication and thereafter pass an speaking order. b)Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice.” 23.In view of the fact that all the RUDs have been supplied and adequate notice for hearing has been given to the Petitioner, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. There is also no juri ictional error. 24.Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to avail of its remedies in accordance with law under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 25.Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that if the Petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority, the pre-deposit would have to be made under Section 107 of the CGST Act and since Rs.70 lakhs of the Petitioner is already lying with the GST Department which has not been returned, the appeal may be considered without a pre-deposit. 26.Let this prayer be made before the concerned appellate authority itself which shall consider the same in accordance with law. 27.The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.” 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 12/12/2025 at 13:45:54
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Notification no.6/2020- Central Tax dated 3rd February, 2020 has also been challenged in this petition.
However, in view of this Court, a second challenge said to the same order in original dated 3rd February, 2025 cannot be permitted. In fact, in terms of the earlier order dated 8th April, 2025, the Petitioner has already filed
the appeal as well.
In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The bank details of the Delhi High Court Bar Association are as under: ● Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association ● Account No.: 15530100000478 ● IFSC Code: UCBA0001553 ● Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
The costs shall be deposited within two weeks.
The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
List for compliance on 12th January, 2026. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. DECEMBER 9, 2025 dj/ss 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 12/12/2025 at 13:45:54
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.