Multiple-Noticee GST Cases Must Be Adjudicated By Single Commissionerate Based On Highest Demand: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and...
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,
“This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and the commissionerate is decided, depending upon the monetary demands that are proposed to be raised and the manner in which the investigation would have proceeded.”
The judges relied on Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 9th February, 2018 which stipulates that when there are multiple parties involved and Show Cause Notices have to be adjudicated, the Adjudicating Authority is fixed on the basis of the jurisdiction which has the highest amount of demand tax.
The clarification comes in a petition moved by an enterprise, challenging the jurisdiction of the Superintendent who confirmed the demand against it.
Petitioner, among 500 other notices, is accused of availing fake Input Tax Credit, facilitated by 16 fake firms.
Petitioner argued that the officer who had passed the impugned order did not have the jurisdiction.
Revenue however contended that when there are more than 575 noticees who are involved, the notice cannot be adjudicated by each and every division separately as applicable to their respective parties. The adjudication has to take place in one Division based upon the monetary claims involved which are monetary demands in the said Division.
Finding merit in this contention, the Court also took serious note of large scale fraudulent availment of ITC stating that “the entire GST system itself is being jeopardized by such parties as the Petitioner. The repeated number of cases where such fraudulent availment ITC is seen, raises a serious concern as to the manner in which a benefit which was meant to be utilised by businesses is being misused by illegal methods.”
It also found the Petitioner guilty of concealing material facts relating to service of communications from the department for personal hearings etc. and accordingly dismissed the plea with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Appearance: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Deepanshu Saini and Mr. Monika Rani, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Shashank Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Malika Kumari, Adv
Case title: M/S J.K. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh. Jai Kishan Bansal v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8293/2025