M/S Mars Exports And Imports, Through Its Proprietor vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable before the Delhi High Court. The primary reasons for this decision were the lack of territorial jurisdiction and procedural defects. Firstly, the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Zonal Unit, the authority that issued the Show Cause Notice (SCN), was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Secondly, the impleaded respondent, the Additional/Joint Commissioner, was not located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Given these facts, the Court concluded that it could not entertain the challenge to the SCN. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations made in the SCN or the validity of the Petitioner's claim for input tax credit. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction over authorities or actions that fall outside its territorial purview, especially when fundamental procedural requirements like proper impleadment of parties are not met. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition along with pending applications.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Mars Exports and Imports, filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27.08.2026. The SCN was issued by the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Zonal Unit, alleging the Petitioner's involvement in the creation, circulation, and infusion of fictitious input tax credit based on invoices without actual supply of goods. The Petitioner sought to challenge this SCN for the financial years 2022-2023, 2023-2024, 2024-2025, and 2025-2026 under Section 74(A)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. However, the Petitioner had not impleaded the DGGI, Meerut Zone, as a party, and the Additional/Joint Commissioner named as a respondent was not located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice issued by the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Zonal Unit, when the Petitioner has not impleaded the DGGI as a party and the named respondent is outside the Court's jurisdiction? (Question of law turning on territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court, implicitly asserting jurisdiction. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Petitioner regarding jurisdiction or the merits of the SCN. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue pointed out that the DGGI, Meerut Zone, which issued the SCN, was not impleaded as a party. Furthermore, the Additional/Joint Commissioner, who was impleaded as a respondent, is not located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Revenue did not explicitly argue on the merits of the SCN itself but highlighted procedural and jurisdictional deficiencies.