ASHISH GUPTA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION SHAHDARA EAST DELHI CGST & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 2nd August, 2024 and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22nd January, 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East. Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9,
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

W.P.(C) 12192/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 9th September, 2025 + W.P.(C) 12192/2025 ASHISH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ASHISH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag Rajput and Mr. Dhruv Bhardwaj, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION SHAHDARA EAST DELHI CGST & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Naman Choula, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 2nd August, 2024 and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22nd January, 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East. 3. Vide the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs. 1,06,93,571/- and imposed a penalty equivalent to the same amount. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, on the basis of investigation conducted against M/s. Akshat International, New

W.P.(C) 12192/2025 Page 2 of 8 Delhi in respect of fraudulent availment and passing of Input Tax Credit to various entities. During the course of investigation, it was found that there are 32 fake entities floated by one Mr. Abhishek Gupta who is a chartered accountant, which were being used in the said fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit. Further, the Petitioner firm was found to be one of the major firms who had availed fake Input Tax Credit from the said entities. 5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 13th August, 2025, considering the fact that the impugned order is an appealable order, the Court had directed the ld.

Counsel for the Petitioner to seek instructions. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner today appears and presses the challenge to the impugned order and impugned show cause notice. The main ground for challenge raised by the Petitioner is that the impugned show cause notice has been issued for multiple financial years in contravention of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Further, it is also stated that the Delhi GST Department has already dropped the proceedings in respect of the same subject matter and thus a contrary position cannot be taken by the Central GST Department. Lastly, it is stated that the impugned order has been passed without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner.

7. Heard. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The challenge to the impugned show cause notice has been raised on the ground that the same has been issued for the multiple financial years. This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by this Court in Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta V. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, 2025:DHC:6181-DB as under: “43. Insofar as the issue of consolidated notice for various financial years is concerned, a perusal of

W.P.(C) 12192/2025 Page 3 of 8 Section 74 of the CGST Act would itself show that at least insofar as fraudulently availed or utilized ITC is concerned, the language used in Section 74(3) of the CGST Act and Section 74(4) of the CGST Act is “for any period” and “for such periods” respectively. This contemplates that a notice can be issued for a period which could be more than one financial year. Similar is the language even in Section 73 of the CGST Act. The relevant provisions read as under: “73. Determination of tax [, pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24,] not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.– – xxxx (3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The language in the abovementioned provisions i.e., the word `period’ or `periods’ as against `financial year’ or `assessment year’ are therefore, significant. 48. The ITC mechanism is one of the salient features of the GST regime which was introduced to

W.P.(C) 12192/2025 Page 7 of 8 2023. An amount of Rs. 44,015 Crore (Rs.15240 Crore (State) + Rs. 28775 Crore (Centre)) of fake ITC has been detected.” xxx 54. The present case appears to be one such case where a substantial amount of ITC is alleged to have been availed/utilized running into more than Rs.83 Crores. The Petitioner is alleged to be one of the main entities/persons involved in the said activity. The transactions are between the years 2017 to 2021. A consolidated notice is, therefore, not merely permissible but, in fact, required in such cases in order to establish the illegal modality adopted by such businesses and entities. The language of the provision itself does not prevent issuance of SCN or order for multiple years in a consolidated manner.

55. Even in the order which has been impugned before this Court, the details of the amounts for each year are set out clearly in the content of the order itself and is, therefore, clearly decipherable. Thus, it cannot be held that the issuance of consolidated notice or order violates the language of the provisions. Especially, in the case of fraudulent availment of ITC or utilization of ITC such consolidated notice and order would not just be in fact, be required to show the wilful misstatement or suppression or the fraudulent availment/utilization.” 8. In view of the above, in the opinion of the Court the Petitioner ought to avail of its appellate remedy.

Operative decision and relief

W.P.(C) 12192/2025 Page 8 of 8 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/dk/msh

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with ASHISH GUPTA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION SHAHDARA EAST DELHI CGST & ORS. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 2nd august, 2024 and the impugned order-in-original dated 22nd january, 2025 issued by the assistant commissioner, cgst, delhi east. operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in the above terms. pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge september 9, The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 12192/2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 2nd August, 2024 and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22nd January, 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East. Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9, Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4) and the decision date 2025-09-09; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is ASHISH GUPTA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION SHAHDARA EAST DELHI CGST & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 12192/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-09-09. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2(106) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73(10) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74(3) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Input Tax Credit

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY