M/S DK ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR, DEEPAK MITTAL vs UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY DEPT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 17th September, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10921/2025 & CM APPL. 45022/2025 M/S DK ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR, DEEPAK MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta and Mr. Rajiv Sorihi, Advs. (M:9891909891) versus UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY DEPT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Naman Choula, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Ms. Khushi Ramuka, Adv. (M:9650580863) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 04th February, 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’). 3. The present case is one wherein there are allegations, inter alia, of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’). The argument by ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was issued a Show W.P.(C) 10921/2025 Page 1 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:22.09.2025 18:33:03 cause notice dated 24th May, 2022 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) through e-mail, and thereafter, the Petitioner approached the GST Department for filing a reply to the said SCN. However, he was asked to upload the said reply on the GST portal, despite the fact that the SCN itself was not uploaded on the GST portal. 4. The impugned order has thus been passed without a reply to the SCN on behalf of the Petitioner, and without any personal hearing. 5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 28th July, 2025, the Court had directed the GST Department to place