Amit Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Facts
The Petitioner, Amit Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 31, 2025, passed by the Adjudicating Authority. This order adjudicated twenty-eight notices issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The Adjudicating Authority determined that the Petitioner had fraudulently availed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on bogus invoices from non-existent firms. The Petitioner was informed that a remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner admittedly has a remedy of appeal against the order dated January 31, 2025. The Court noted that a common order was passed against twenty-eight notices adjudicating proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, where the Adjudicating Authority found the Petitioner to have availed ineligible ITC fraudulently through bogus invoices. The Court also referred to its previous judgment in *Parag Garg vs. Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST Delhi West and Anr.* concerning Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, stating it is applicable even to non-taxable persons but not retrospectively. Keeping in view the availability of the appeal remedy, the Court observed that the Petitioner, if advised, may avail this remedy. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated January 31, 2025, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, implying a challenge to the order. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Petitioner regarding the availability or efficacy of the appeal remedy. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the order dated January 31, 2025, as per the provisions of the CGST Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue regarding the availability or efficacy of the appeal remedy, beyond stating its existence.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 122(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 30.09.2026
Admittedly, the Petitioner has a remedy of Appeal against the order dated 31.01.2025. 2. A common order has been passed against twenty-eight (28) notices while adjudicating the proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’]. The Adjudicating Authority has found that the Petitioner has availed ineligible Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) by fraudulent means on the strength of bogus invoices issued by non-existent firms.
With regard to Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, this Bench by an elaborate judgment dated 29.09.2026 in W.P.(C) 13883/2026 122(1A) of the CGST Act is applicable even to non-taxable pe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.