NAVNEET BANSAL v. ADDITIONAL 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); GST statutory provision - Section 174

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Navneet Bansal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order- in-Original dated 28th November 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’ ) passed by the Respondent-Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North. The same arises out of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter ‘SCN’) dated 7 th May, Operative disposition: 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
• 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

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17th December, 2025 Uploaded on: 18th December, 2025 + W.P.(C) 4723/2025& CM APPL. 21719/2025 NAVNEET BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshat Vachher & Mr. Shrey Lodha, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Naman Choula, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Navneet Bansal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Orderin-Original dated 28th November 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’ ) passed by the Respondent-Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North. The same arises out of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter ‘SCN’) dated 7 th May, 2021. 3. The background of the present case is that Directorate General of GST Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DGGI’), Delhi Zonal Unit had received intelligence in respect of availment of ineligible CENVAT Credit by raising of fraudulent invoices showing sale of goods such as PVC Resin SP . On the basis of the said intelligence, searches were carried out at various premises including one

7. The challenge in this case is that the RUDs have not been supplied. The other submission made by Mr. Vacher, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in the case of M/s Devansh Chemical P. Ltd., notice has already been issued in a petition filed by the said entity i.e., W.P. (C) 1274/2025 and he re lies upon the submissions made by M/s Devansh Chemical P. Ltd. which is recorded in the impugned order. 8. This Court has considered the matter. In the case of the Petitioner, no reply was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner was fully aware of the SCN which was issued to him. Not even an iota of attempt was made by the Petitioner to rebut or explain the allegations against the Petitioner. The reliance on paragraph 3.3 of the impugned order where the submission of M/s Devansh Chemical P. Ltd. is recorded would not assist the Petitioner as it appears that the said firm may have appeared before the Adjudicating Authority. In any event, the impugned order clearly records that after issuance of notice to various noticees, many of them filed replies, however, the Petitioner chose not to do so. Paragraph 4.4 of the impugned order is extracted below: “4.4 Again, letters dated 12.06.2024 was issued for personal hearing on 24/25/26.06.2024 to all the remaining noticees. Neither any noticee appeared for personal hearing nor they have given any written submission on the given dates for personal hearing. However, Sh. Navneet Bansal, partner of M/s Banson Enterprises vide his letter dated 01.07.2024 asked

11. This Court has consistently taken the view that in 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. In the opinion of this Court, the same shall be applicable to cases of CENVAT Credit.

12. It would be appropriate 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 CGST Act, 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 u nder 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

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

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”

18. The persons, who are involved in such transactions, cannot be allowed to try different remedies before different forums, inasmuch as the same would also result in multiplicity of litigation and could also lead to contradictory findings of different For ums, Tribunals and Courts.” 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.

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 22 nd September, 2025 has merely extended the time for filing the appeal. 17. Under these circumstances, the petition is lacking any merit and is dismissed. Moreover, there is not even a submission as to why despite the impugned order having been passed on 28th November, 2024, the present writ petition was first listed only in April, 2025 when the limitation had already expired. 18. On this aspect the case of the Petitioner is that the petition was filed on 31st January, 2025. It is possible that the matter was kept under objections without removing defects for three months. Giving this benefit of doubt to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is given an opportunity to file an appeal challenging the impugned order. If the appeal is filed in accordance with law by 31 st January, 2026, the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. 19. The observations made by this Court shall not bind the Appellate Authority if the appeal is filed in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with NAVNEET BANSAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner - navneet bansal under article 226 of the constitution of india, inter alia, assailing the order- in-original dated 28th november 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’ ) passed by the respondent-additional commissioner, cgst delhi north. the same arises out of show cause notice (hereinafter ‘scn’) dated 7 th may, operative disposition: 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 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) 4723/2025.

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 “Dismissed” 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 - Navneet Bansal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order- in-Original dated 28th November 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’ ) passed by the Respondent-Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North. The same arises out of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter ‘SCN’) dated 7 th May, Operative disposition: 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 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); GST statutory provision - Section 174—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); GST statutory provision - Section 174 and the decision date 2025-12-17; 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 NAVNEET BANSAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 4723/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-12-17. 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 RENU BHATNAGAR. 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); GST statutory provision - Section 174. 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 Dismissed. 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.
• GST statutory provision - Section 174 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Rishi Enterprises through Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North and Another — Delhi High Court · Dismissed
• SHRI JATIN GUPTA @ PARUL v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE UNIT DELHI — Delhi High Court · Dismissed
• Sun Aero Ltd. v. PCIT — Delhi High Court · Quashed / set aside
• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — 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