Delhi High Court Cautions GST Dept Against Errors In Mentioning Financial Years, Due Dates In SCNs & Orders

The Delhi High Court has asked the GST Department to exercise caution when mentioning financial year, other relevant dates in the show cause notices and orders issued by it to a taxpayer.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar sounded the note of caution after coming across a case where the authority inadvertently mentioned the due date for filing reply to the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner as 28th August, 2025, instead of 28th August, 2024. The impugned order, raising demand against the Petitioner was passed on 21st January, 2025, citing its failure to respond to the SCN.Petitioner claimed that it had time to respond to the SCN till 28th August 2025 but the impugned order was passed before that, denying it a proper hearing and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.The High Court however said that Petitioner cannot be permitted to rely upon the Department's typographical error.“Clearly, the same was merely an error which cannot be taken advantage of by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner…CGST Department is advised to exercise caution in future while mentioning financial years, due dates for replies and such material particulars in the show cause notices and orders,” it said.A copy of this order has been sent to the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, for necessary information and compliance.The High Court further observed that even if it is assumed that the time to file reply was till 28th August, 2025, there was nothing on record to show that the Petitioner ever filed any reply in the matter.The case relates to alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, involving 79 fake entities, who have transferred substantial amounts of ITC (Rs.122 crores approx) through GSTR filing. The Petitioner's liability is to the tune of Rs.23,20,171/- as per the impugned order.In this factual backdrop, the Court refused to interfere in the matter, adding, “This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is routinely seen in such cases that there are complex transactions involved which require factual analysis and consideration of voluminous evidence.”Reliance was placed on Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. where the High Court observed that it has been coming across many cases where ITC facility has been misused even when the output tax is not deposited. “Such misuse, if permitted to continue, would create an enormous dent in the GST regime itself.”It also referred to M/s MHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South where the High Court held that it must, while dealing with cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, balance the interest of trader with that of burden on State exchequer due to tax evasion.Appearance: Mr. S. B. Sharma, Mr. Yashwant Gehlot, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC, Ms. Malika Kumari, Adv. for R-1. Case title: M/S A V Metals Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner CGST & AnrCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1667Case no.: W.P.(C) 18230/2025Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Cautions GST Dept Against Errors In Mentioning Financial Years, Due Dates In SCNs & Orders

Kapil Dhyani

Tags