M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(119); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 75(3); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The petitioner was subjected to GST audit for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2021-22. An intimation in Form ADT-01 dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the Audit Wing of Central Goods and Services Tax2 in that regard. Operative disposition: This Court has also considered the reliance placed by Mr. Rastogi on the judgments rendered by the Bombay High Court, which may have taken a view that departs, in certain respects, from that expressed in Ambika Traders. However, so far as this Court is concerned, it remains bound by the view taken in Ambika Traders and must proceed accordingly. It is also relevant to note that Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23774/2025 was preferred against the decision in Ambika Traders before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and, after some hearing, the same came to be dismissed as not
• 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) 5581/2025 Page 5 of 12 SCN, namely: GST of ₹18,67,69,338/- on the issue relating to alleged wrongful availment of the 12% rate under Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate); GST of ₹1,30,00,000/- on the allegation of non-payment of GST at 28%; and penalty under Section 74 as well as Section 122(1)(xvii) of the CGST Act, resulting in a total penalty of 200%. 12. After the passing of the said OIO, multiple Form GST DRC-07 summaries came to be issued with reference to the order dated 31.01.2025. For FY 2017-18, DRC-07 summaries were issued on 03.02.2025, 04.02.2025 and 05.02.2025. 13. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court, wherein the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned OIO dated 31.01.2025 and dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit on the ground that an amount of ₹49,52,923/- had already been paid on 07.11.2023 during the course of audit as part of admitted liability. 14. When the present matter was taken up on 30.04.2025 for the first time, this Court crystallised the grounds raised in the petition and identified the specific issue that arose for consideration in the matter. Inasmuch as the said order narrows the scope of adjudication, the relevant paras thereof are reproduced below for the sake of clarity: “4. The broad grounds raised by Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner are as under:

W.P.(C) 5581/2025 Page 6 of 12 (ii) Moreover, multiple years have been clubbed in the Show Cause Notice and common demands have been raised. (iii) That penalty has been imposed under Section 75(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, „CGST Act‟) despite the penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act having already been imposed. 5. Heard. There are matters before this Court in which the question of multiple years being clubbed in the Show Cause Notice has been considered by this Court and the same is part-heard. The said matters are listed on 20th May, 2025.

6. In so far as the categorisation of the goods and services is concerned, that would be an issue which would have to be raised in an appeal. However, insofar as consolidation of multiple years is concerned, since the issue is part heard, the Court adjourns the matter to 20th May, 2025.” 15. Although the order dated 30.04.2025 crystallises the controversy which arises for consideration, it would also be apposite to briefly mention the major grounds urged, as further elaborated in the written submissions dated 09.02.2026. Broadly, the petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings on the ground that the SCN and the OIO impermissibly consolidate multiple financial years into a single adjudicatory exercise, even though, according to the petitioner, the present matter does not concern fraudulent availment or utilisation of Input Tax Credit6, but arises out of an interpretational dispute as to the nature of the supplies effected by it and the rate of tax applicable thereto. The petitioner‟s case is that each financial year ought to have been dealt with separately and that the passing of a common order has resulted in

W.P.(C) 5581/2025 Page 7 of 12 prejudice by collapsing distinct causes of action, returns, limitation periods and legal defences. 16. The petitioner has further urged that the reliance sought to be placed by the respondents on the decisions of this Court in Ambika Traders through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner7 and Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors. 8 is misconceived in the facts of the present case. As per the petitioner, both the said decisions were rendered in the context of allegations relating to fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC extending across financial years, whereas the present case, as submitted, does not involve fake invoices, circular trading, non-existent suppliers or clandestine credit chains, but raises a pure issue of classification and rate applicability. It is on this basis that the petitioner contends that the ratio of the said judgments cannot be mechanically applied to the present dispute. 17. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner, with reference to the written submissions, that several Benches of the Bombay High Court, after considering the very judgments of this Court relied upon by the respondents, have consciously taken a different view in matters not involving ITC fraud, including Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India & Ors. 9 , Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors.10, M/s Paras

W.P.(C) 5581/2025 Page 8 of 12 Stone Industries v. Union of India & Ors.11 and AR Traders, through its proprietor Shri Abdul Rashid v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur12. The petitioner specifically relies upon Milroc Good Earth Developers to contend that the Bombay High Court distinguished Ambika Traders on the footing that the facts before the Delhi High Court related to wrongful availment of ITC over subsequent years, whereas the matter before it arose in a different factual and legal setting. It is also pointed out that the Bombay High Court took note of the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition against Ambika Traders with an observation that the said decision would not apply to the facts of other cases, and independently examined the expressions “for any period” and “for such period(s)” in support of year-wise adjudication in non-fraud cases. 18. Heard Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anushree Narain, learned Senior Standing Counsel and perused the documents on record. 19. At the outset, this Court makes it clear that it is not entering into the merits of the controversy as to whether there was, in fact, any fraudulent availment of ITC. That issue lies squarely within the domain of the statutory appellate authority. An efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and Rule 109A of CGST Rules, 2017, which has admittedly

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

W.P.(C) 5581/2025 Page 4 of 12 non-payment of GST at 28%; and lastly, penalties under Section 74 and Section 122(1)(xvii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20174. 8. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said SCN on 09.05.2024 before the adjudicating authority. 9. In its reply dated 09.05.2024, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that it was engaged in providing works contract services relating to the installation of security cameras and CCTV systems. It submitted that the audit had earlier culminated in the Observation Memo dated 06.11.2023 and that it had already responded to both the Audit Report and DRC-01A and they denied any suppression or wilful misstatement. It further contended that it was entitled to the concessional rate of 12% under Sl. No. 3(vi) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on the basis that its supplies constituted works contract services rendered to government agencies. The petitioner also asserted in the said reply that CCTV installations qualified as works contract within the meaning of Section 2(119) of the CGST Act. 10. A personal hearing was thereafter held before the adjudicating authority. 11. Thereafter, Order-in-Original5 No. DE/GST/ADC (JR) 224/202425 dated 31.01.2025 came to be passed with reference to SCN No. 09/2024-25 dated 10.04.2024 and corrigendum dated 13.11.2024. The said OIO dated 31.01.2025 confirmed the entire demand proposed in the

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

21. As already observed hereinabove, this Court is not delving in the present proceedings to determine whether fraud is, in fact, made out and therefore will not undertake the adjudication on that point. However, insofar as the submission seeks to confine Ambika Traders only to cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC across financial years, this Court is unable to agree. In this context, we deem it important to reproduce the relevant para of the said judgment: “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 avai led or utilised 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.

25. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the impugned OIO and grants liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be available to it in accordance with law. 26. This Court once again makes it clear that it has not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that all rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are left open. 27. For all the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition, along with pending applications is dismissed.

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 Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others concerns issue and context: the petitioner was subjected to gst audit for the period from fy 2017-18 to fy 2021-22. an intimation in form adt-01 dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the audit wing of central goods and services tax2 in that regard. operative disposition: this court has also considered the reliance placed by mr. rastogi on the judgments rendered by the bombay high court, which may have taken a view that departs, in certain respects, from that expressed in ambika traders. however, so far as this court is concerned, it remains bound by the view taken in ambika traders and must proceed accordingly. it is also relevant to note that special leave petition (c) no. 23774/2025 was preferred against the decision in ambika traders before the hon‟ble supreme court and, after some hearing, the same came to be dismissed as not 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) 5581/2025.

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 petitioner was subjected to GST audit for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2021-22. An intimation in Form ADT-01 dated 20.03.2023 was issued by the Audit Wing of Central Goods and Services Tax2 in that regard. Operative disposition: This Court has also considered the reliance placed by Mr. Rastogi on the judgments rendered by the Bombay High Court, which may have taken a view that departs, in certain respects, from that expressed in Ambika Traders. However, so far as this Court is concerned, it remains bound by the view taken in Ambika Traders and must proceed accordingly. It is also relevant to note that Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23774/2025 was preferred against the decision in Ambika Traders before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and, after some hearing, the same came to be dismissed as not Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2(119); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 75(3); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(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(119); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 75(3); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1) and the decision date 2026-03-16; 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 Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 5581/2025, and the decision is dated 2026-03-16. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL. 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(119); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 75(3); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(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 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(119) — 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 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 75(3) — 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.

Case network

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

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY