MS RS TRADING CO v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(1)

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-in- Original dated 18th June, 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, North Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned OIO’) . The Petitioner also challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 31st March, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 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) 14918/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25th September, 2025 + W.P.(C) 14918/2025 MS RS TRADING CO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra, Adv. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC with Ms. Malika Kumari, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 61369/2025 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 14918/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-inOriginal dated 18th June, 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, North Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned OIO’) . The Petitioner also challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 31st March, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). 4. Vide the impugned OIO, a demand to the following effect has been raised against the Petitioner:

W.P.(C) 14918/2025 Page 3 of 5 IGST Act, 2017 and order to recover the same from them.” 5. The GST Department’s case against the Petitioner is that various nonexisting units had passed on Input Tax Credit (hereinafter ‘ITC’) to the Petitioner, and the main person who was found to be involved in the case is Mr. Manish Kumar, who was the proprietor of the Petitioner (hereinafter ‘proprietor’). 6. GST Department conducted searches at the Petitioner’s residential and office premises. The statement of the proprietor was also recorded. Thereafter, statements of various third parties have also been recorded. In his statement, the Proprietor has, in fact, admitted that he did not know any persons in these firms, and that he used brokers to conduct the said business.

Some of the statements were in fact subsequently retracted by the proprietor, and he was also arrested, as he was unable to deposit the evaded GST liability as well. 7. The proprietor was arrested on 4 th March 2021, under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter ‘the Act’)for allegedly committing offences under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Act. 8. As per the impugned OIO, the Petitioner was found to be engaged in fraudulent availment of ineligible ITC on the strength of fake and bogus invoices from non-existing suppliers. The entire investigation was done against 17 firms, which were completely fake and non-existent. These firms were suppliers of the Petitioner, who were all found to be non-existent and whose GST registrations were cancelled.

However, the same does not inspire any confidence at this stage. 13. In any case, since the impugned OIO is an appealable order under Section 107 of the Act, the Court is of the opinion that an appeal ought to be filed by the Petitioner, along with the requisite pre-deposit.

W.P.(C) 14918/2025 Page 5 of 5 14. The present writ petition was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Act. Now, even the period of limitation for filing the appeal has expired. Since the petition was filed within the period of limitation, the Petitioner is permitted to file the appeal by 15 th December 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit. 15. If the Appeal is filed by the Petitioner within the stipulated time, it shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be treated as barred by limitation. 16. 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 kk/sm

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

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 MS RS TRADING CO v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ORS. 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-in- original dated 18th june, 2025 passed by the additional commissioner, cgst, north delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned oio’) . the petitioner also challenges the impugned show cause notice dated 31st march, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned scn’). 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 september 25, 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) 14918/2025.

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-in- Original dated 18th June, 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, North Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned OIO’) . The Petitioner also challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 31st March, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(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 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(1) and the decision date 2025-09-25; 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 MS RS TRADING CO v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 14918/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-09-25. 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 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(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 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 69 — 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 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 132(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 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_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY