The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Navneet Bansal against the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, in a case involving the fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC). The petitioner was implicated in a Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) investigation for allegedly issuing invoices without actual supply of goods, thus fraudulently availing CENVAT and ITC. Despite receiving a show cause notice and admitting to issuing invoices for commission without the movement of goods, the petitioner did not respond on merits or retract his statement during the adjudication process.
The main issue was whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction could be invoked in such cases when a statutory appellate remedy was available. The Court determined that fraudulent ITC cases require a complex examination of facts and evidence, which are not suitable for writ proceedings. The petitioner had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication proceedings but opted not to, despite being aware of the allegations and having the chance to be heard.
Read More: GST – Gujarat High Court: Confiscation under Section 130 with intent to evade payment of tax can be invoked independently without first concluding proceedings under Section 129 [Order attached]
The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be used when an appealable order exists, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The petitioner's un-retracted admission was deemed a significant factor supporting the department's findings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, but the Court allowed the petitioner limited liberty to file a statutory appeal within an extended timeframe.
Order Date: 17 December 2025
Parties: Navneet Bansal vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North
Facts:
- The petitioner was implicated in a DGGI investigation alleging issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods, resulting in fraudulent availment of CENVAT and input tax credit.
- A show cause notice was issued based on statements recorded during search proceedings, wherein the petitioner admitted to issuing invoices for commission without movement of goods.
- Despite receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner failed to file any reply on merits or retract his statement during adjudication proceedings.
- An order-in-original imposing substantial penalty was passed, which the petitioner directly challenged before the High Court without availing statutory appellate remedies.
Issue:
- Whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised in cases involving fraudulent ITC and disputed questions of fact when an effective statutory appellate remedy exists?
Order:
- The High Court held that cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC entail complex factual examination and appreciation of evidence, making them unsuitable for writ adjudication.
- It observed that the petitioner consciously chose not to participate in adjudication proceedings despite having full knowledge of the allegations and opportunity of hearing.
- The Court relied upon settled law that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where an appealable order exists unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
- It further noted that the petitioner’s un-retracted statement constituted a significant admission supporting departmental findings.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, while granting limited liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within the extended time prescribed by the Court.
