VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR

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)

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 Order -in- Original dated 21st January, 2025 (hereinafter, „impugned order‟ ) passed by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Central GST, Delhi North. Vide the impugned order, the following demand has been raised against the Petitioner: Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed
• 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR ...Respondents Through: Mr. Arjun Malik, SSC (CBIC) for R-1. Mr. Subodh Kumar Kaushik, SPC, Ms. Chhaya Sharma, Adv.for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 75014/2025 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 18128/2025 & CM APPL. 75015/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , challenging the Order -inOriginal dated 21st January, 2025 (hereinafter, „impugned order‟ ) passed by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Central GST, Delhi North. Vide the impugned order, the following demand has been raised against the Petitioner:

4. In challenge to the same impugned order dated 21st January, 2025, this Court has already relegated a similarly placed noticee to avail of the appellate remedy in ‘W.P.(C) 16455/2025 Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.’ vide order dated 30th October, 2025, where the Court has held as under: “13. Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The Petitioner was well aware of several notices, which were issued and the reply was duly filed by the Petitioner. Even in reply, the only ground taken is that the RUDs have not been supplied and there is no stand taken by the Petitioner on merits. 14. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to relegate the Petitioner to avail of appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The a ppeal may be filed by the Petitioner by 30 th November, 2025 along with the requisite pre -deposit. If the same is filed by the said date, the appeal shall be entertained on merits and shall not be dismissed being barred by limitation.”

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.

10. It would be apposite 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 Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, 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 remed y, 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 under 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.

12. In the present case, non e of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.

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

19. Let a copy of this Order be communicated by the Registry, as also by Mr. Arjun Malik, SSC(CBIC), to Mr. Manish Kumar, Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi Zone( manishkumar.69@gov.in, crucexdel@nic.in) for necessary information and compliance. 20. Thereafter, l et a copy of this order be circulated by Mr. Manish Kumar, Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi Zone , to all Commissionerates, highlighting that there are many errors in the orders and show cause notices , so that the same can be properly supervised and rectified. 21. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR 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 order -in- original dated 21st january, 2025 (hereinafter, „impugned order‟ ) passed by the office of the additional commissioner of central gst, delhi north. vide the impugned order, the following demand has been raised against the petitioner: operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in the above terms. all pending applications are also disposed 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) 18128/2025.

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 Order -in- Original dated 21st January, 2025 (hereinafter, „impugned order‟ ) passed by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Central GST, Delhi North. Vide the impugned order, the following demand has been raised against the Petitioner: Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed 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)—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) and the decision date 2025-12-01; 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 VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 18128/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-12-01. 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). 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 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.

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