M/S EVERSHINE POLYMERS v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH

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); GST statutory provision - Section 107

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Evershine Polymers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original bearing no. 83/ADC/D.N./Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 27th January 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Respondent- Additional Commissioner, CGST - Delhi North. The present petition also challenges the Show Cause Notice bearing no. 77/2024-25 dated 23rd July 2024 (hereinafter ‘SCN’) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Evasion, CGST - Delhi North. Operative disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATIBHA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2025
• 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) 5376/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 5376/2025 & CM APPL. 24454/2025 M/S EVERSHINE POLYMERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Jha, Adv. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH .....Respondent Through: Ms. Monica Benjamin, SSC with Ms. Nancy Jain, 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 by the Petitioner- M/s Evershine Polymers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original bearing no. 83/ADC/D.N./Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 27th January 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the RespondentAdditional Commissioner, CGST - Delhi North. The present petition also challenges the Show Cause Notice bearing no. 77/2024-25 dated 23rd July 2024 (hereinafter ‘SCN’) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Evasion, CGST - Delhi North. 3. One of the issues that arises in the present petition is as to whether a single Show Cause Notice can be issued for multiple years or not. 4. A perusal of the Order-in-Original would show that it relates to multiple years but deals with passing of Input Tax Credit amounting to more than ₹41

W.P.(C) 5376/2025 Page 2 of 6 crores (Approx.). The demand has been raised against the Petitioner to the tune of ₹1,34,08,276 (₹67,04,138/- as Tax and ₹67,04,138/- as Penalty). 5. The impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. In the case of Ambika Traders, this Court has already held as under: “43. Insofar as the issue of consolidated notice for various financial years is concerned, a perusal of 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 issuedfor any periodunder 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.

(4) The service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for such tax periods other than those covered under subsection (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice. XXXX 74. 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

W.P.(C) 5376/2025 Page 3 of 6 availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilfulmisstatement or suppression of facts.–– XXXX (3) Where a notice has been issuedfor any periodunder 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. (4) The service of statement under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be service of notice under sub-section (1) of section 73, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon in the said statement, except the ground of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, for periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice.” 44.

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

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.

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,

W.P.(C) 5376/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 permissible but may, in fact, be required to show the wilful misstatement or suppression or the fraudulent availment/utilization.” 6. Therefore it is clear from the above decision that the consolidation of SCN for multiple years has been allowed in cases where ITC has been fraudulently availed which is the primary allegation against the Petitioner in the present case as well. In view of the primary contention being settled vide the above decision and considering that fact that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal by 30th September, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposits. 7. If the appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the Appellate Authority shall not dismiss the same on the ground of limitation and shall decide it on merits. 8. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATIBHA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2025 Rahul/Ar.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S EVERSHINE POLYMERS v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- m/s evershine polymers under article 226 of the constitution of india,inter alia, assailing the order-in-original bearing no. 83/adc/d.n./shaukat ali nurvi/2024-25 dated 27th january 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the respondent- additional commissioner, cgst - delhi north. the present petition also challenges the show cause notice bearing no. 77/2024-25 dated 23rd july 2024 (hereinafter ‘scn’) issued by the deputy commissioner, anti evasion, cgst - delhi north. operative disposition: petition is disposed of in these terms. all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. pratibha m. singh judge shail jain judge august 20, 2025 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) 5376/2025.

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 by the Petitioner- M/s Evershine Polymers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original bearing no. 83/ADC/D.N./Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 27th January 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Respondent- Additional Commissioner, CGST - Delhi North. The present petition also challenges the Show Cause Notice bearing no. 77/2024-25 dated 23rd July 2024 (hereinafter ‘SCN’) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Evasion, CGST - Delhi North. Operative disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATIBHA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2025 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); GST statutory provision - Section 107—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); GST statutory provision - Section 107 and the decision date 2025-08-20; 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 M/S EVERSHINE POLYMERS v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 5376/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-08-20. 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); GST statutory provision - Section 107. 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.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — 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