Delhi High Court Upholds GST Adjudication Process Despite SCN Signed By One Officer But Portal Reflecting Another
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain declined to entertain a writ challenge to a GST adjudication order raising demands for alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The Court accepted the department’s position that the Show Cause Notice, though reflected on the GST portal under the name of one officer, had in fact been signed by the competent officer, and found no basis to invalidate the adjudication on that ground. It also noted that where multiple noticees are involved, the common adjudicating authority is fixed based on the jurisdiction having the highest proposed tax demand. The appeal was stated to lie before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram, with a direction that an appeal filed by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit be decided on merits without rejection on limitation.
The writ petition was instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an adjudication order dated 14 February 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi (South). The impugned order raised tax demands against the petitioner on allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit. The record before the Court disclosed that the investigation pertained to a network of entities across multiple cities allegedly involved in issuance of fake invoices without actual supply of goods or services. One individual was identified by the authorities as operating several fictitious firms forming the basis of the alleged transactions.
The petitioner, stated to be the proprietor of a firm engaged in providing manpower services, was alleged to be part of the chain of beneficiaries of such invoices. Two principal objections were raised: first, that the show cause notice was issued by an officer not competent having regard to the monetary threshold; and second, that since proceedings were conducted across Delhi and Faridabad, there was uncertainty regarding the appropriate appellate forum. The respondents contended that the notice was duly authorised and that statutory circulars and notifications clarified the appellate jurisdiction.
The Court noted that “the records present a complex factual situation wherein multiple individuals and entities based in various cities have been found to be involved in the alleged fraudulent availment of ITC.” Addressing the first objection, it recorded the submission of the respondents that “though the show cause notice… is shown on the portal under the name of the Superintendent, DGGI, the show cause notice was actually signed by the Joint Director himself.”
On the issue of appellate jurisdiction, the Court examined Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST and observed that “to ensure uniformity in procedure for review, revision, and appeal against the Orders-in-Original adjudicated by Common Adjudicating Authorities,” appeals were to lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) corresponding to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under whom the adjudicating authority was posted. Referring to the relevant notification, the Court stated that “there exists no doubt that the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram would be the correct authority before whom the Petitioner can file an appeal.”
The Court further recorded that “in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different Commissionerates,” and that jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the highest proposed tax demand. It clarified that the uploaded DRC-07 was only a summary and that “the main impugned order itself has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Faridabad.” Ultimately, the Court observed that “the objections raised on behalf of the Petitioner do not appear to be tenable,” while noting that all contentions could be raised before the appellate authority.
The Court recorded that “considering that this is a case where allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) have been made, the Petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy. If the appeal is filed by 31st January, 2026 along with the pre-deposit, it shall not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and “pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Chadha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Monika Benjamin, Senior Standing Counsel, with Ms. Nancy Jain, Advocate; Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocates; Mr. Varun Mishra, SPCUOI, SSC, CBIC; and Mr. Ashar Hussain
Case Title: Manikjeet Singh Kals v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11344-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4682/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Shail Jain
