Shri Ashish Mittal Proprietor Of M/S Nidhi Sales Corporation vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication, CGST Delhi West

Facts

Four writ petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court 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 petitioners, including M/s Nidhi Sales Corporation and M/s Ansh Steel Crafts LLP, were among these noticees. The impugned order found that invoices were issued 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 of one of the petitioner firms. The petitioners sought a similar course of action as adopted by the Allahabad High Court in a related matter, which remitted the case to the original adjudicating authority. However, the Delhi High Court noted that its previous judgment in Rohit Garg vs. Union of India had relegated parties 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 26.12.2025, especially given that it was a common order covering a large number of noticees. The Court noted that the challenge involved appreciation of factual findings and evidentiary material, making the appellate forum more appropriate. Consequently, the Petitioners were relegated 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 filed an application seeking exclusion of the period spent in pursuing the writ petitions for computing the limitation period, it would be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. 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. concerning the pre-deposit requirement, if otherwise applicable, which the appellate authority would consider in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal against the common adjudication order dated 26.12.2025, considering the pendency of similar matters before this Court and the nature of the impugned order, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Petitioners argued that a similar course of action as adopted by the Allahabad High Court, which remitted the matter to the original adjudicating authority, should be followed. - They contended that the period spent pursuing the present writ proceedings 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 & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. regarding the pre-deposit requirement for filing the appeal, as proceedings were initiated prior to 01.10.2025 and only penalty proceedings were initiated without fastening any tax liability. Revenue's Arguments: - The Revenue relied on the previous judgment of this Court in Rohit Garg vs. Union of India and Ors., which directed parties to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.