Rishi Enterprises through Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North and Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 52; GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(10)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Rishi Enterprises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 11 th February, 2025 ( hereinafter, ‘ impugned order’), which was passed pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 05th August, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). Factual Background Operative disposition: The petition is dismissed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed on in the above
• 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

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX DELHI NORTH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Shreya Lamba, Mr. Ritwik Saha and Mr. Arya Suresh, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Rishi Enterprises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 11 th February, 2025 ( hereinafter, ‘ impugned order’), which was passed pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 05th August, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). Factual Background 3. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading and has been registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide GSTIN 07AHTPG4076A1ZE. The impugned SCN was issued

to a total of 90 entities. The allegation against the noticees was that there was wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter ‘ ITC’) by all these entities. 4. The brief facts of the case are that an investigation was initially started against M/s Padmavat Industries based in Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005. The said investigation was initiated on the basis of information received from Directorate of Analytics and Risk Management (hereinafter, ‘DGRAM’). The allegation against M/s Padmavat Industries was that it was not existing at its principal place of business. 5. One M/s DS Enterprises was, thereafter, identified as one of the recipients of goods from M/s Padmavat Industries.

documents, which were filed by M/s DS Enterprises for the period between September, 2017 to September, 2023 were then analysed by the Department. All the entities to whom M/s DS Enterprises had issued invoices were given notices, and the entire transaction totalled to a sum of ₹26.42/- crores. 8. Though there were a total of 229 recipients, only 89 recipients were under the jurisdiction of Delhi, Central Goods and Services Tax, North Commissionerate. Consequently, all the 89 recipients were issued notice. Summonses were issued to all these noticees; several of them participated in the proceedings , and finally , the impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 9. As per the impugned order, penalties have been imposed on several of the noticees including the Petitioner - M/s Rishi Enterprises who is mentioned at serial no. 14 as Noticee no. 15 in the impugned order. The tax and penalty imposed on the Petitioner is to the tune of ₹51,87,858 (Tax of ₹25,93,929.00/- and Penalty of ₹25,93,929.00/-).

impugned SCN was issued in time in terms of Section 74 of the Act, the impugned order has not been issued within the period of five years from the due date for the filing of the annual return. The said five-year period expired on 05 th February, 2025 but the impugned order has been passed only on 11th February, 2025. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is conscious of the fact that the date of the signed order is 31 st January, 2025 but because of the date on which it is being uploaded along with the DRC -07 on th e portal, the same is barred by law. Reliance is placed upon, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 10/2022 titled as ‘ Suman Jeet Agarwal v.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1) and Others’, where a similar provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been interpreted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Ld. Counsel then relies upon one of the Allahabad High Court in HCL Infotech Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax and Another 2024 SCC Online 5769 (Paragraph 25) to argue that if the notice lacks the basic ingredients of Section 74 of the Act, the notice would not be sustainable. (iii) The next submission is that though the impugned order is an appealable order, question of limitation being one that is jurisdictional in nature, the writ petition would be maintainable. (iv) The decision in Joint Commissioner v.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that GST DRC -07, dated 03.05.2024, is barred by time. The time was extended by Notification No.56 of 2023 upto 30.04.2024 and DRC-07 is passed thereafter. The second argument is that under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the GST Act”), there is no provision to pass the O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024. Thirdly, it is argued that DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024 does not have any physical or digital signature. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC pointed out that the order dated 24.04.2024 does contain physical signature and it is passed on 24.04.2024 which is well within the time.

Revenue / respondent submissions

c) Thirdly, that the grounds for invoking Section 74 of the Act are not satisfied. 13. He has relied upon the following decisions as well. ● Akash Garg v. State of M. P., [W.P. No.16117/2020 decided on 19th November, 2020] ● L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, [R/Special Civil Application No.11308 of 2019 decided on 3rd February, 2022] 14. On the other hand, Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent - Department has submitted that - (i) On the issue of provision of consolidated SCN for multiple years, the judgment of this Court in Ambika Traders through proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North (W.P.(C) 4853/2025 decided on 29 th July, 2025) has held that, if the allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC is raised in an SCN, then the same can deal with multiple financial years. (ii) Secondly, addressing the issue of belated uploading of DRC -07, he submits that this Court in its decision in Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North, [W.P.(C) 12199/2025, decided on 13th August, 2025] has held that the belated uploading of the DRC-07 would not, in itself, make the order barred by limitation. (iii) Thirdly, reliance has also been placed on the fact that in this case, though the uploading of the impugned order happened subsequently on 11th February, 2025, an email was sent to the Petitioner on 4 th February, 2025 on the registered email address of the Petitioner communicating the impugned order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Submissions of the Parties 10. The submissions of Mr. Abhishek Garg, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner are captured below: (i) There was no wilful suppression or fraud in this case, therefore the five years period of limitation under Section 74(10) of the Act could not have been invoked by the Department. Further, the period prescribed for issuance of SCN under Section 73(10) of the Act, 2017 is three years , which has already lapsed, and, therefore, the impugned SCN itself is time-barred. (ii) Secondly, without prejudice , even if it is considered that the

11. On these grounds, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that impugned SCN and the impugned order are liable to be quashed. 12. A brief summary of all the grounds are as follows - a) Firstly, that single SCN cannot be issued for multiple financial years. b) Secondly, that neither the impugned order nor the DRC-07 have been issued within the period of limitation, and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

The language in the abovementioned provisions i.e., the word `period’ or `periods’ as against `financial year’ or `assessment year’ are therefore, significant. 48. The ITC mechanism is one of the salient features of the GST regime which was introduced to encourage genuine businesses. In the words of Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the then Hon’ble President of India, who addressed the Nation at the launch of the GST on 1st July, 2017, ITC was highlighted as one of the core features integral to the framework of the GST regime. The relevant extract of the said speech of the Hon’ble President is set out below: “I am told that a key feature of the system is that buyers will get credit for tax paid on inputs only when the seller has actually paid taxes to the government.

54. The present case appears to be one such case where a substantial amount of ITC is alleged to have been availed/utilized running into more than Rs.83 Crores. 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 p rovision 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, 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 in

22. Even in the present case, there are a maze of transactions, which may be spreading over various financial years and, therefore, owing to the statutory language and the view already taken by this Court in the above decision, it cannot be held that a SCN or an order passed under Section 74 of th e Act relating to fraudulent availment of ITC cannot relate to multiple financial years. 23. Coming to the issue of limitation, it is relevant to note that the Petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground of limitation on two sub -grounds namely: (i) The impugned order along with DRC -07 was uploaded on the portal only on 11th February, 2025 which was beyond the period of limitation. (ii) The email communication of the impugned order cannot constitute valid ‘service’ as the Petitioner allegedly had not received it and even otherwise email as a mode of communication would not fall into the scope of ‘deemed service’ under Section 169(2) of the Act. 24. A perusal of Section 74(10) of the Act would show that the order issued under Subsection 74(9) has to be issued within a period of 5 years from the due date of filing of annual returns. The said provision reads as under: “74. Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.— (1)…..

73 of the GST Act. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in CCT v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED , it is submitted that the petitioner could have preferred an appeal within ninety (90) days extendable by thirty (30) days under the GST Act. The petitioner has not filed the petition within aforesaid time. This point is considered by the Apex Court to t he aforesaid case and in view of principles laid down therein this petition may not be entertained. 6. We have heard the parties at length. ********* 8. Admittedly, the petitioner had a remedy of appeal under the GST Act and did not avail such remedy. This petition is not filed within the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in GLAXO SMITH K LINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED (supra), we find substance in the argument of learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC that this petition is not liable to be entertained. Otherwise, it will be against the scheme and intention of the statutory provision. The O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024 contained physical signature and it is issued within the limitation period which was extended upto 30.04.2024. DRC-07 is only a ‘summary of order’ and even if it did not contain any signature, it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.”

Operative decision and relief

Unlike in the case of L&T (supra), in the present case, there are various factual issues would have to be considered and analysed, which in writ jurisdiction cannot be gone into. Accordingly, this Court, upon a consideration of the overall conspectus of the matter, is satisfied that the provisions of Section 74 of the Act are applicable to the present case. 37. In this factual and legal background, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The Petitioner is, however, permitted to file the appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority by 30th September, 2025 along with the requisite pre -deposit. If the same is filed within the stipulated period, the Appellate Authority shall not dismiss it on the grounds of limitation and adjudicate it on its own merits. 38. The petition is dismissed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed on in the above terms.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Rishi Enterprises through Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North and Another concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- rishi enterprises under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india , inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 11 th february, 2025 ( hereinafter, ‘ impugned order’), which was passed pursuant to show cause notice dated 05th august, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned scn’). factual background operative disposition: the petition is dismissed in the above terms. pending applications, if any, are also disposed on in the above 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) 4374/2025.

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- Rishi Enterprises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 11 th February, 2025 ( hereinafter, ‘ impugned order’), which was passed pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 05th August, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). Factual Background Operative disposition: The petition is dismissed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed on in the above Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 52; GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(10)—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 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 52; GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(10) 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 Rishi Enterprises through Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North and Another, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 4374/2025, 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 1; GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 52; GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(1); GST statutory provision - Section 74(10). 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 1 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(106) — 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 52 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 62 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 63 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 64 — 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(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74(10) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• NAVNEET BANSAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH — 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 Input Tax Credit

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

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