Author: Anjali Kumari

LIST OF STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017

• Citation: W.P.(C) 4723/2025, 17^th December 2025.

• Parties: 

1. Navneet Bansal, partner of M/s Banson Enterprise (Petitioner).
2. Additional Commissioner, (CGST) Delhi North (Respondent).

• Bench: Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi

• Judges:

1. J. Pratibha M. Singh
2. J. Renu Bhatnagar

Facts of the Case: 

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence conducted an investigation that found many firms fraudulently claiming Input Tax Credit without actually selling the goods. During the investigation, searches were conducted in many premises, including M/s Saraswati Printers. It was found that Navneet Bansal, a partner of M/S Banson Enterprise, was also involved in these invoices. 

Subsequently, a search was conducted at Navneet Bansal’s premises, during which he admitted that he had issued those invoices at the request of Saraswati Printers and had received a commission for the same. Based on his admission, a show cause was issued to him. 

However, he failed to provide the relied-upon documents to the authorities; he did not file a reply on the merits, nor did he retract his statement; he also did not appear at the adjudication of the proceedings. Consequently, the tax authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.63 crore on the petitioner. He then approached the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the penalty order.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in this case?
2. Whether the non-supply of the Relied Upon Documents is a violation of natural justice?

Contentions by the Parties:

• Petitioner: 

The petitioner contended that the Relied Upon Documents were never supplied to him despite repeated requests via email, and that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of audi alteram partem. He approached the High Court as the case fell within the exception of the alternative remedy.

• Respondent:

The respondent objected to the writ petition on the ground that the order was appealable under s. 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They argued that a party that deliberately abstains from adjudication proceedings cannot later allege a violation of natural justice, and that a mere request for RUDs, without filing a reply or appearing before the adjudicating authorities, cannot invalidate the proceedings. 

Decision of the Court:

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition and decided the case in favour of the respondent. 

The court held that the petitioner failed to file any reply to the SCN and that there was no violation of natural justice, as he was given an opportunity. He had a chance to appeal under the CGST Act. The court also confirmed that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in cases of fraudulent availment of CENVAT/ ITC.