M/S Ansh Steel Crafts LLP vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication, CGST Delhi West And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Nidhi Sales Corporation, M/s Ansh Steel Crafts LLP, Suresh Kumar Mittal, and Shri Ashish Mittal, filed four writ petitions challenging a common adjudication order dated December 26, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST Delhi West. This order adjudicated proceedings concerning 629 noticees. The impugned order found that the Petitioner-Firm had issued invoices without actual supply of goods, facilitating Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 2,31,36,877/-. This finding was based, in part, on the statement of Mr. Suresh Kumar Mittal, a partner. The petitioners sought similar relief as granted by the Allahabad High Court in other cases, where matters were remitted to the adjudicating authority. However, the Delhi High Court noted that previous writ petitions challenging the same order had been relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal.

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 the challenge involved appreciation of factual findings and evidentiary material. Therefore, relegating the parties to the appellate authority was deemed appropriate. The Court directed that all questions of fact and law, including the correctness of the findings and the evidentiary material relied upon, are left open to be considered by the competent appellate authority. Regarding the period of limitation for filing the appeal, the Court permitted the petitioners to file an application before the appellate authority seeking exclusion of the period during which the writ petitions were pending, stating that such an application would be considered in accordance with law. On the issue of pre-deposit, the Court held that the petitioners would be entitled to avail the benefit, if otherwise applicable, of the judgment in Gaurav Jain, and the appellate authority shall consider their claim in accordance with that judgment and applicable law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge to the impugned order.

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 similar petitions were previously disposed of by this Court by directing parties to avail the appellate remedy? (Question of law) 2. Whether the period spent pursuing the present writ petitions should be excluded from the limitation period for filing the statutory appeal? (Question of law) 3. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to avail the benefit of the judgment dated July 31, 2026, in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., concerning the pre-deposit requirement for maintaining the statutory appeal, considering that proceedings were initiated prior to October 1, 2025, and only penalty proceedings were initiated without fastening tax liability? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioners argued that the Allahabad High Court had remitted similar matters to the original adjudicating authority and urged for a similar course of action. - They contended that the period spent pursuing the writ petitions should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the statutory appeal. - They sought to avail the benefit of the judgment in Gaurav Jain regarding pre-deposit, as proceedings were initiated prior to October 1, 2025, and no tax liability was fastened, only penalty proceedings. Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue on the primary issue of relegating to appeal, but their presence and representation indicate opposition to the petitioners' requested relief.