SHREE INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Nitin Gupta under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the following impugned Orders-in-Original (hereinafter, collectively ‘impugned orders’): (i) Order No. 90/ADJ-DGGI/DN/2024-25 dated 28 thJanuary, 2025. (ii) Order No. 162/ADC/D.N./BHAVAN MEENA/2024-25 dated 01stFebruary, 2025. (iii) Order No. 57/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/2024-25 dated 21stJanuary, 2025. (iv) Order No. 58/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/2024-25 dated 21st January 2025. (v) Order No. 99/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/ 2024-25 Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 20, 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) 11051/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 11051/2025 & CM APPL. 45479/2025 NITIN GUPTA PROPRIETOR SHREE INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Mr. Virag Tiwari, Mr. Ramashish & Ms. Tanya Saraswa, Advs. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Adv. Mr. Jatin Singh, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Nitin Gupta under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the following impugned Orders-in-Original (hereinafter, collectively ‘impugned orders’): (i) Order No. 90/ADJ-DGGI/DN/2024-25 dated 28 thJanuary, 2025. (ii) Order No. 162/ADC/D.N./BHAVAN MEENA/2024-25 dated 01stFebruary, 2025. (iii) Order No. 57/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/2024-25 dated 21stJanuary, 2025. (iv) Order No. 58/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/2024-25 dated 21st January 2025. (v) Order No. 99/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/ 2024-25

Further, the only penalty that could have been imposed is under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, which has also not been imposed. Thus, all the orders are liable to be quashed. 8. Issue notice. Ld. Counsel for Respondents accept notice.

W.P.(C) 11051/2025 Page 3 of 7 9. The first and foremost question that arises before this Court is whether in such matters multiple orders can be challenged in the same writ petition, especially after the period of limitation has already elapsed. 10. Secondly, in terms of the circular dated 6th July, 2022, the question that would arise is whether the Petitioner’s stand is that it had engaged in actual supply of goods or services or whether there was no actual supply of goods or services. 11. The Court has put a query to ld. Counsel for the Petitioner as to whether, in the writ petition, there is a stand taken by the Petitioner on this aspect.

12. Mr. Jain seeks time to answer this query by the Court. The answer to the said query would be crucial in such a case where the application of the circular dated 6th July, 2022 is being pressed by the Petitioner. 13. In addition, the Order-in-Original dated 28th January 2025 imposes a demand of Rs. 79,542,282/- as tax. Following the principles of pre-deposit, the opinion of this Court, prima facie is that even if the writ is to be entertained, the pre-deposit in terms of the CGST Act, 2017 ought to be made for entertaining of the writ petition. On this aspect also, Mr. Jain wishes to make his submissions.

W.P.(C) 11051/2025 Page 6 of 7 12. In so far as the issue pertaining to different proper officers passing the different impugned orders is concerned, the same principle would apply, inasmuch as the number of noticees in each of the impugned orders is as under: (i) Order dated 28 thJanuary, 2025: 27 noticees (ii) Order dated 01 stFebruary, 2025: 650 noticees (iii) Order dated 21 stJanuary, 2025: 374 noticees (iv) Order dated 21 st January 2025: 1155 noticees (v) Order dated 29 thJanuary, 2025: 108 noticees (vi) Order dated 31 stJanuary, 2025: 106 noticees 13. Given the large number of noticees in the impugned orders and differing fact situations, the proper officer cannot therefore be determined on the basis of only one party i.e., the Petitioner and any of the Commissionerates, who commences the investigation, would be the proper officer in such circumstances.

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

W.P.(C) 11051/2025 Page 7 of 7 appeals against the impugned orders. However, with respect to pre-deposits, this Court is of the opinion that the same shall be made only in respect of the order dated 28th January, 2025, where the demand is to the tune of Rs.15,90,84,564/-, including the penalty. The tax demanded is Rs.7,95,42,282/-. 18. Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel, submits that a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- has already been deposited by the Petitioner under protest. The pre-deposit shall be made in respect of this order dated 28th January, 2025 and the credit to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- shall be afforded to the Petitioner. 19. The appeals shall be permitted to be filed through the GST portal of the Petitioner or in physical mode as well, inasmuch as pre-deposit is not being directed in respect of impugned orders no. 2 to 6. 20. The appeals be filed by the Petitioner by 30 th September, 2025, along with the pre-deposit, as directed above. 21. If these appeals are filed by 30 th September, 2025, the same shall be adjudicated on merits and should not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The observations made by this Court shall have no bearing on the outcome of the appeals. All rights and contentions of parties are left open. 22. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2025 pd/ss

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with SHREE INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner-nitin gupta under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, inter alia, assailing the following impugned orders-in-original (hereinafter, collectively ‘impugned orders’): (i) order no. 90/adj-dggi/dn/2024-25 dated 28 thjanuary, 2025. (ii) order no. 162/adc/d.n./bhavan meena/2024-25 dated 01stfebruary, 2025. (iii) order no. 57/adc/d.n./shaukat ali nurvi/2024-25 dated 21stjanuary, 2025. (iv) order no. 58/adc/d.n./shaukat ali nurvi/2024-25 dated 21st january 2025. (v) order no. 99/adc/d.n./shaukat ali nurvi/ 2024-25 operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in these terms. pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge august 20, 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) 11051/2025.

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-Nitin Gupta under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the following impugned Orders-in-Original (hereinafter, collectively ‘impugned orders’): (i) Order No. 90/ADJ-DGGI/DN/2024-25 dated 28 thJanuary, 2025. (ii) Order No. 162/ADC/D.N./BHAVAN MEENA/2024-25 dated 01stFebruary, 2025. (iii) Order No. 57/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/2024-25 dated 21stJanuary, 2025. (iv) Order No. 58/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/2024-25 dated 21st January 2025. (v) Order No. 99/ADC/D.N./SHAUKAT ALI NURVI/ 2024-25 Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2025 Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122—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 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122 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 SHREE INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 11051/2025, 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 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122. 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 74 — 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 — 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