HEADNOTE
Manikjeet Singh Kalsi v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction: Writ Jurisdiction (Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
Bench: Justices Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain
Date of Judgment: December 12, 2025
Citation: W.P.(C) 4682/2025 (Delhi High Court)
Laws / Provisions Involved: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Sections 73, 74, 107, 108; Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST; Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax; Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST
Keywords: Fraudulent ITC, DGGI adjudication, appellate jurisdiction GST, common adjudicating authority, limitation protection
Summary
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), holding that the objections raised regarding authority, jurisdiction, and appellate forum were misconceived. The Court clarified that where multiple noticees across jurisdictions are involved, adjudication by a common adjudicating authority is permissible under GST circulars and notifications. It further held that the appellate authority in such cases is determined by the commissionerate under which the adjudicating authority is posted, not by the location where summary orders are uploaded. Relegating the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy, the Court granted protective limitation relief, directing that an appeal filed by 31 January 2026 shall be entertained on merits.
Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition and declined to interfere with the GST adjudication order dated 14 February 2025. The Court held that the petitioner must pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and clarified that if the appeal is filed by 31 January 2026 along with the prescribed pre-deposit, it shall not be rejected on limitation and must be decided on merits.
Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Bharat Facilities, was issued a show cause notice alleging fraudulent availment of ITC as part of a larger racket involving fake firms issuing invoices without actual supply of goods or services. The investigation was conducted by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), and adjudication culminated in an order raising tax demands. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the show cause notice was improperly issued and that there was ambiguity regarding the correct appellate forum.
Issues
Whether the show cause notice and adjudication were invalid due to lack of proper authority, and whether ambiguity regarding territorial jurisdiction and appellate forum justified High Court interference under writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that considering the quantum involved, the show cause notice could not have been issued by a Superintendent of DGGI and had to be issued by a higher authority. It was also contended that since proceedings took place across Delhi and Faridabad, there was confusion regarding the correct appellate authority, warranting writ intervention.
Respondents’ arguments
The Revenue submitted that although the show cause notice appeared on the portal under the Superintendent’s name, it was in fact signed by the Joint Director, DGGI, satisfying statutory requirements. It was further argued that circulars clearly define the appellate forum based on the posting of the adjudicating authority, and no jurisdictional ambiguity existed.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST and Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax, holding that appeals against orders passed by common adjudicating authorities lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) corresponding to the commissionerate under which such authority is posted. It further relied on Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST to explain the statutory framework for adjudication in cases involving multiple noticees across jurisdictions.
Precedent analysis
While no external judicial precedent was relied upon, the Court applied binding statutory circulars and notifications governing GST adjudication and appeals, reiterating that administrative clarity under GST law must be respected before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Court’s reasoning
The Bench held that the adjudication was validly conducted by a competent authority empowered with all-India jurisdiction. It clarified that the DRC-07 uploaded by the Delhi Commissionerate was only a summary, whereas the adjudication order itself clearly specified the appellate authority at Gurugram. The Court found no jurisdictional infirmity and emphasised that all contentions could be raised before the appellate authority.
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. Protective directions were issued to safeguard limitation, ensuring access to appellate adjudication on merits.
Implications
This judgment provides important clarity on GST appellate jurisdiction in complex, multi-noticee ITC fraud cases. It reinforces judicial reluctance to bypass statutory remedies and underscores the binding nature of GST circulars in determining adjudicatory and appellate forums, while balancing taxpayer rights through limitation protection.
Case law / statutory references
• Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST (24 June 2025)
Principle: Appellate forum depends on posting of common adjudicating authority.
Application: Used to identify Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram as proper forum.
• Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST (9 February 2018)
Principle: Framework for adjudication in multi-noticee and cross-jurisdiction GST cases.
Application: Applied to uphold validity of common adjudication.
FAQs
Q1. Can GST adjudication be done by a common authority for multiple noticees?
Yes. GST circulars permit common adjudication based on highest tax demand and notified jurisdiction.
Q2. How is the appellate authority determined in such cases?
By the commissionerate under which the adjudicating authority is posted, not by where summaries are uploaded.
Q3. Did the Court grant any relief to the taxpayer?
Yes. The Court granted limitation protection for filing the statutory appeal.
Also Read: Bombay High Court: B.A. + D.Ed teacher enters Category ‘C’ from graduation date for seniority