M/S SAMARTH TRADERS vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

Judgment text excerpt

$~107 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision; 18th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 8804/2025 M/S SAMARTH TRADERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pravesh Bhaguna, Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra, Mr. Bharat Khurana & Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advs. versus THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER .....Respondent Through: Mr. R. Ramachandran, SSC with Mr. Prateek Dhir, 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 on behalf of the Petitioner- M/s Samarth Traders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 24th December, 2024 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned order’) passed by the office of the Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North. 3. Vide the impugned order, a demand has been raised upon the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.18,55,35,050/-. The details of the demand raised is as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 8804/2025 Page 1 of 7 By:RAHUL Signing Date:20.08.2025 19:10:24 4. A brief background of the present case is that the Petitioner is a proprietorship firm involved in trading of goods and has a Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) registration. During conduct of its business, the Petitioner is stated to have claimed Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) on supplies received from various parties and passed on the same to the buyers. However, thereafter, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (‘DGGI’), Jaipur unit, initiated a case against one, Mr. Ashutosh Garg for creating and operating fake firms and issuance of fake invoices without supply of goods. 5. The allegation against the Petitioner is that Mr. Ashutosh Garg is operating fake firms with an i