M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 122(3)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025 issued by the Respondent Department (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’), by which the following demands have been raised against the Petitioner: Operative disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 31,
• 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) 15841/2025 Page 1 of 12 $~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 31st October, 2025 + W.P.(C) 15841/2025, CM APPL. 64879/2025 & CM APPL. 64880/2025 M/S R GUPTA METAL STORE (THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yash Aggarwal, Mr. Aman Sinha, Advs. (M: 8076196835) versus CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH (THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC with Ms. Malika Kumari, Adv. (M:8826900757) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.64880/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 15841/2025 & CM APPL. 64879/2025 (for stay) 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025 issued by the Respondent Department (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’), by which the following demands have been raised against the Petitioner:

W.P.(C) 15841/2025 Page 2 of 12 4. A brief background of the present case is that, there were notices issued to 670 parties. In the said notices, during the investigation pursuant thereto, it was revealed that there were various firms in Sita Ram Bazar and Naya Bazar, which were used to generate fake invoices. A total of 55 non-existing bogus supplier firms were found and more than 553 crore as inadmissible ITC was passed on to 5,962 recipients/beneficiary firms. 5. The Petitioner appears at serial No.209 in the said list of 670 parties. After the investigation was concluded, the demand was raised against the Petitioner. 6. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 3rd August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’), by the Respondent Department, to which the Petitioner filed a reply on 14th October, 2025. 7. The submission of ld. Counsel for Petitioner is that the aforesaid reply which was filed by the Petitioner to the SCN, was not properly considered by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. On the other hand, ld. SSC for the Respondent objects to the writ petition being entertained on the ground that this case involves fraudulent availment of ITC, and as per the settled precedents which this Court has already pronounced, the writ petition would not be maintainable. Further, ld. SSC for the Respondent contends that the appeal would also not be maintainable, as there is substantial delay, as the impugned order is dated 4 th February, 2025.

W.P.(C) 15841/2025 Page 3 of 12 9. This Court has consistently taken the view thatin 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, as also the detailed orders passed after investigation by the Department. In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal.

10. It would be apposite to refer to some of the cases which have been decided by the Supreme Court as also by this Court on these aspects. The Supreme Court in the context of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has, in Civil Appeal No. 5121/2021 dated 3rd September, 2021 titled ‘The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited’, has held as under: “11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

W.P.(C) 15841/2025 Page 10 of 12 17. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However, the Petitioners are granted the liberty to file an appeal. 18. Accordingly, the Petitioners are permitted to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, by 15th July, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit mandated, in which case the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 19. Needless to add, any observations made by this Court would not have any impact on the final adjudication by the appellate authority.” 14. The decision in Metal Techs (supra) has also been carried to the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 27411/2025 titled M/S Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South . In the said SLP, the Supreme Court vide order dated 22nd September, 2025 has merely extended the time for filing the appeal. The same order reads as under: “ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied that it is a fit case to exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 3. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. The time period for filing the appeal granted by the High Court till 15.07.2025 is extended upto 15.10.2025. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 15. Additionally, it is noted that in respect of this very impugned order, one of the other noticee i.e., Giftco Exports, has already filed a writ petition being

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 concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

13. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from taking recourse to appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case” 11. Thereafter, this Court in W.P.(C) 5737/2025 titled Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. dealing with a similar case involving fraudulent availment of ITC had held as under: “11. The Court has considered the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is an exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

W.P.(C) 15841/2025 Page 12 of 12 20. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 31, 2025/dk/sm

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of the constitution of india, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 4th february, 2025 issued by the respondent department (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’), by which the following demands have been raised against the petitioner: operative disposition: accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms. pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge october 31, 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) 15841/2025.

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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025 issued by the Respondent Department (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’), by which the following demands have been raised against the Petitioner: Operative disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 31, Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 122(3)—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 16; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 122(3) and the decision date 2025-10-31; 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 R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 15841/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-10-31. 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 16; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 122(3). 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 and later 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 16 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 122(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 122(3) — 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 Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published