M/S Nidhi Sales Corporation vs. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST Delhi West And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Nidhi Sales Corporation and M/s Ansh Steel Crafts LLP, along with individuals associated with them, filed writ petitions challenging a common adjudication order dated December 26, 2025. This order adjudicated proceedings against 629 noticees. The core of the dispute involved a finding by the adjudicating authority that the Petitioner-Firm issued invoices without actual supply of goods/material, thereby facilitating the availment/generation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 2,31,36,877/-. This finding was partly based on the statement of Mr. Suresh Kumar Mittal, a partner of the Petitioner-Firm. The petitioners sought a similar course of action as adopted by the Allahabad High Court in similar matters, where the case was remitted to the original adjudicating authority.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners ought to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned common adjudication order dated December 26, 2025. The Court reasoned that the impugned order was a common adjudication order covering a large number of noticees and that the challenge involved factual findings requiring appreciation of evidence, including the statement of a partner and the material relied upon by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the Court decided to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal. All questions of fact and law, including the correctness of the findings and the evidentiary material, were left open to be considered by the competent appellate authority. The Court also directed that if the petitioners file an application for exclusion of the period spent pursuing the writ petitions, it shall be considered by the appellate authority. Furthermore, the petitioners were permitted to avail the benefit of the judgment in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. regarding the pre-deposit requirement, if applicable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal against the common adjudication order dated December 26, 2025, given that it pertains to over 600 noticees and involves factual findings requiring appreciation of evidence? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that a similar matter before the Allahabad High Court resulted in a remittance to the original adjudicating authority, and therefore, a similar course should be adopted. They also sought exclusion of the period spent pursuing the writ petitions for calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal and requested to avail the benefit of a previous judgment regarding pre-deposit requirements. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on the issues framed, other than their presence through counsel.
Sections Cited
Section 129
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
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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:31
Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. (46) # CNR No. DLHC010093492026 + W.P.(C) 3279/2026, CM APPL. 15881/2026, CM APPL. 15882/2026 SURESH KUMAR MITTAL PARTNER OF M/S ANSH STEEL CRAFTS LLP .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Reena Khaire, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC along with Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia and Mr. Rithwik Narayanan, Advs. Mr. Nitin Saluja, SSC along with Ms. Vasudha Singh and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. (47) # CNR No. DLHC010094052026 + W.P.(C) 3299/2026, CM APPL. 15969/2026, CM APPL. 15970/2026 SHRI ASHISH MITTAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S NIDHI SALES CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Reena Khaire, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST .....Respondent Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC along with Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia and Mr. 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:31
Rithwik Narayanan, Advs. Mr. Nitin Saluja, SSC along with Ms. Vasudha Singh and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR O R D E R % 29.09.2026
With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, the present batch of four (04) Writ Petitions is being taken up for hearing and is being disposed of by this common order, as the issues arising in all these Petitions emanate from the same Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025. 2. At the outset, learned counsel representing the Petitioner fairly submits that the present cases arise out of the common Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025, whereby proceedings in respect of as many as 629 noticees have been adjudicated. It is further submitted that several connected Writ Petitions challenging the said common order have already been considered by this Court.
In particular, learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that this Court, vide judgment dated 07.09.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8829/2026, titled Rohit Garg vs. Union of India and Ors. along with other connected matters, has relegated the concerned parties to the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025. 4. Learned counsel, however, submits that, in respect of two notices arising out of proceedings concerning the same adjudication, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has adopted a different course and 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:31
has remitted the matter to the original adjudicating authority. On this basis, it is urged that a similar course may be adopted in the present Petitions.
This Court has considered the aforesaid submission. The distinguishing feature which emerges in the present batch is that the Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025 is a common order passed in respect of more than six hundred (600) noticees. The challenge in the present Petitions, therefore, has to be considered in the context of the nature and scope of the common adjudication and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.
It is also relevant to notice that, in the Impugned Order, a finding has been returned against the Petitioner-Firm to the effect that invoices were issued without actual supply of goods/material, thereby facilitating availment/generation of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) amounting to Rs.2,31,36,877/-.
The aforesaid finding has, inter alia, been returned after consideration of the statement of Mr. Suresh Kumar Mittal, who is stated to be a Partner of the Petitioner-Firm. Thus, the challenge raised by the Petitioners involves appreciation and examination of the factual findings recorded by the adjudicating authority, including the material relied upon in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly having regard to the fact that the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 is a common adjudication order covering a large number of noticees, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners ought to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the Impugned Order.
Accordingly, the Petitioners are relegated to the remedy of appeal available to them in accordance with law. All questions of fact 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:31
and law, including the correctness of the findings recorded in the impugned order and the evidentiary material relied upon by the adjudicating authority, are left open to be considered by the competent appellate authority in accordance with law.
Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that, since the present Writ Petitions have remained pending before this Court, the period spent in pursuing the present proceedings may be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal.
If so advised, the Petitioners shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent appellate authority seeking exclusion of the period during which the present Writ Petitions remained pending before this Court. Needless to say, such application shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Learned counsel representing the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners may be permitted to avail the benefit of the judgment dated 31.07.2026 passed by this Bench in W.P.(C) No. 8414/2026, titled Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., insofar as the requirement of pre-deposit for maintaining the statutory appeal is concerned.
It is submitted that the proceedings against the Petitioners were initiated prior to 01.10.2025 and that the Petitioners have been subjected only to penalty proceedings and no tax liability has been fastened upon them. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the Petitioners should not be required to make the pre-deposit contemplated under the applicable statutory provisions, in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:31
Having regard to the aforesaid submission, the Petitioners shall be entitled to avail the benefit, if otherwise applicable, of the judgment dated 31.07.2026 passed by this Bench in Gaurav Jain (supra). The competent appellate authority shall consider the Petitioners’ claim in accordance with the said judgment and applicable law.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioners’ challenge to the Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged before and considered by the competent appellate authority in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present batch of Writ Petitions, along with all pending applications, stands disposed of.
A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected matters. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. BHARAT PARASHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 s.godara/pal 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:31
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.