Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi-East and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The petition being W.P.(C) 4455/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner – Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking to set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 30th July, 2021 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and the Order-in- Operative disposition: Subject to the said appeal being filed, the communication dated 24 th October, 2025 issued in respect of the bank accounts i.e., HDFC Bank and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., and the communicati on issued on 29 th October, 2025 in respect of the property i.e., A-10/13, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 shall stand set aside. Insofar as the Provisional Attachment Order dated 21st November, 2023 is concerned, the period of one year under Section 83 of the CGST Act has already lapsed, hence, the same is now infructuous. Therefore, the said…
• 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

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC, with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Ms. Shreya Lamba and Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advs. Mr. Izhar Ahmad, SPC for R-1/UOI. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The petition being W.P.(C) 4455/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner – Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking to set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 30th July, 2021 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and the Order-inW.P.(C) 4455/2025 Page 2 of 12

Original dated 1st January, 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi – East under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’). 3. Further, the petition being W.P.(C) 16884/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, assailing the Provisional Attachment Order dated 21st November, 2023 in Form GST DRC-22 issued by the Commissioner of GST, Delhi-East. 4. The brief background of the present case is that on the basis of allegations of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’), a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 30 th July, 2021 was issued against the Petitioner. The allegation in the said SCN was that Rs.10.70 crores was availed of as ITC by the Petitioner through fictitious firms on bogus invoices without there being actual supply of goods.

The said SCN was based upon investigation initiated by the Department against the Petitioner company wherein the Director of the Petitioner company i.e., Mr. Ashish Goyal was, in fact, arrested. He was thereafter granted bail on 18 th November, 2020. The Petitioner then filed replies to the SCN on 6 th September, 2021 and 12 th December, 2023. The impugned order dated 1st January, 2025 was then passed confirming the demand in the following terms: “i) I hereby order to recover ITC of IGST of Rs.26,26,988/ - (Twenty-Six Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-Eight) from M/s DEVANSH WIRE AND CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 along with interest payable thereon under section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 and also impose penalty of Rs.

5. This impugned order was challenged by the Petitioner in W.P. (C) 4455/2025 on multiple grounds which are recorded below: “4. The present petition assails the impugned SCN and OIO on multiple grounds, which are as under :- i) Issuance of a consolidated Show Cause Notice for various Financial Years. ii) Non -issuance of Demand under Rule 142 of the

CGST Rules, 2017 in appropriate years. iii) The demand under Rule 142 being issued for a different Financial Year than the year f or which the show cause notice is issued. iv) The Order in Original does not duly address the reply submitted by the Petitioner.”

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

In terms of Section 83 (2) of the CGST Act, an order passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act is not operative after expiry of a period of one year. Thus, the impugned order is no longer operative. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no fresh order under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act has been passed. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to verify the same. 6. We do not consider the same is necessary as the petitioner’s relief is confined to the impugned order passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act. Since the impugned order is not operative by virtue of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by noting the same.

established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus. 47. A solitary availment or utilization of ITC in one financial year may actually not be capable of by itself establishing the pattern of fraudulent availment or utilization. It is only when the series of transactions are analysed, investigated, and enquired into, and a consistent pattern is established, that the fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC may be revealed. The language in the abovementioned provisions i.e., the word `period’ or `periods’ as against `financial year’ or `assessment year’ are therefore, significant.” 12. The SLP against the decision in Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta (Supra) was also dismissed as withdrawn. The relevant portion of the said order dated 1st September, 2025 in SLP(C) No. 023774/2025 reads as under: “1. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition. 2. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed”

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

16. Therefore, considering the fact that the impugned order is dated 1 st January, 2025 and the W.P. (C) 4455/2025 was filed within the limitation period, this Court is of the opinion that the benefit is liable to be given to the Petitioner for the period during which the case remained pending before this Court. 17. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of the substantive right of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the pre-deposit in terms of the statute. If the appeal is filed along with the requisite pre-deposit by 15 th December, 2025, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. 18. Subject to the said appeal being filed, the communication dated 24 th October, 2025 issued in respect of the bank accounts i.e., HDFC Bank and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., and the communicati on issued on 29 th October, 2025 in respect of the property i.e., A-10/13, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 shall stand set aside. Insofar as the Provisional Attachment Order dated 21st November, 2023 is concerned, the period of one year under Section 83 of the CGST Act has already lapsed, hence, the same is now infructuous. Therefore, the said attachment would no longer be valid

Operative decision and relief

7. The concerned bank (Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.) shall not int erdict the operations of the petitioner’s bank account on the basis of the impugned order. The Sub - registrar shall also not interdict the transfer of the petitioner’s immovable property on the basis of the impugned order. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

9. This Provisi onal Attachment Order dated 21 st November, 2023 has been challenged in W.P. (C) 16884/2025. The said writ petition was filed on 11th October, 2025 and was first listed on 7th November, 2025. After the said writ petition was filed, on 24 th October, 2025 recovery proceedings were initiated qua the Petitioner under Section 79 of the CGST Act to recover the demand in terms of the impugned order dated 1 st January, 2025. In addition, the Sub -Registrar has also been issued a communication on 29 th October, 2025 for realising the said amount of Rs.7,99,26,706/ - as arrears on land revenue and also the said property has been attached. 10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the impugned SCN was issued for multiple financial years which is not tenable in law, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. If any statutory appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the issue of delay may be considered accordingly, more particularly keeping in mind that the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before the High Court and thereafter before this Court. 5. We grant the petitioner time upto 31 -10-2025 to prefer the statutory appeal as provided in law. 6. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

and is accordingly set aside. 19. Both these petitions are disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 20. The portal shall be accordingly amended in terms of the above order.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi-East and Others concerns issue and context: the petition being w.p.(c) 4455/2025 has been filed by the petitioner – devansh wire and cables private limited under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, inter alia , seeking to set aside the show cause notice dated 30th july, 2021 (hereinafter ‘impugned scn’) and the order-in- operative disposition: subject to the said appeal being filed, the communication dated 24 th october, 2025 issued in respect of the bank accounts i.e., hdfc bank and tamilnad mercantile bank ltd., and the communicati on issued on 29 th october, 2025 in respect of the property i.e., a-10/13, jhilmil industrial area, shahdara, delhi – 110032 shall stand set aside. insofar as the provisional attachment order dated 21st november, 2023 is concerned, the period of one year under section 83 of the cgst act has already lapsed, hence, the same is now infructuous. therefore, the said… 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) 4455/2025.

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 “Allowed / set aside” 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 petition being W.P.(C) 4455/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner – Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking to set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 30th July, 2021 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and the Order-in- Operative disposition: Subject to the said appeal being filed, the communication dated 24 th October, 2025 issued in respect of the bank accounts i.e., HDFC Bank and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., and the communicati on issued on 29 th October, 2025 in respect of the property i.e., A-10/13, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 shall stand set aside. Insofar as the Provisional Attachment Order dated 21st November, 2023 is concerned, the period of one year under Section 83 of the CGST Act has already lapsed, hence, the same is now infructuous. Therefore, the said… 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 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1)—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 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1) and the decision date 2025-11-11; 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 Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi-East and Others, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 4455/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-11-11. 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 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1). 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 Allowed / set aside. 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 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 50 — 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(1) — 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.
• GST statutory provision - Section 79 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 83 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 83(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Globe Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Director Vipin Mittal v. Commissioner of DGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Padam Kishore and Company through Proprietor Naveen Sachdeva v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

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